A Plan to End the Insurgency and Rebuild Iraq

Economist Laurence Kotlikoff of Boston University has a plan to save Iraq:

Enlisting Iraqis to rebuild their country, by Laurence J. Kotlikoff, Commentary, Boston Globe: Four years, more than 26,600 American casualties, more than 100,00 Iraqi casualties, 2 million refugees, and $410 billion later, large parts of Iraq and a vast majority of Iraqis are stuck in an unmitigated hell, with no end in sight. The routine massacres of scores of innocent people, the bombings of schools, hospitals, mosques, and universities, the grizzly tortures, and now the gas attacks and use of children as bomb delivery systems are resulting in the mutual assured destruction of the Iraqi people.

If Iraqis are engaged in competitive genocide, the United States is engaged in staticide -- the maintenance of a suicidal status quo. The United States has not committed and will never commit enough troops to achieve security given its tactics.

Many Americans and Iraqis suspect that the presence of US soliders is making the security situation worse and exacerbating whatever carnage our inevitable departure will engender. This is why the majority of both Americans and Iraqis think it's time for the United States to withdraw.

In the meantime, the Iraqi government should implement a policy that will put an end to its Armageddon.

The Iraqi government should institute a draft of all Iraqi men between the ages of 18 and 35. This is the demographic most responsible for the violence. The removal of these 3 million men from the cities and countryside to army barracks would likely bring an immediate end to Iraq's horrific nightmare. Any men older than 35 suspected of involvement in terrorist or insurgent acts would also be enlisted...

The role of the enlarged Iraqi army would not involve bearing arms or training in the use of arms. Rather the role would be to reconstruct the country. All army units would be assigned specific reconstruction tasks and be jointly commanded by a Shia, a Sunni, and a Kurd who would make unanimous decisions. If any threesome can't agree, they would be replaced by a threesome that can.

Inductees would be taught the skills needed for their assigned reconstruction tasks..., and learn respect for diversity and human rights. They would be paid well, by the United States, for their national service. Annual per capita income in Iraq is now roughly $3,000. ...

Were the United States to pay 3 million Iraqi soldiers $10,000 yearly, the bill would be $30 billion. This is a small amount relative to the savings it would accrue from leaving the country. It would also make service in the Iraqi army highly desirable...

Eventually, the country's oil revenue would be used to cover these premium payments to Iraqi soldiers and provide a precedent for distributing oil revenues directly to Iraqis -- something that is long overdue and would eliminate much of the basis for the sectarian violence. ...

Instituting a draft is hardly a radical proposal. Scores of countries, including many in the region, have compulsory military service.

Enlisting young Iraqi men to rebuild their country would permit Iraqi children to attend school in safety, let the country rebuild its infrastructure, and let Iraqi women and older men work, shop, and pray in peace. And it would let the US military leave Iraq with a real sense of mission accomplished.

Comments

[Winslow R.]

"Eventually, the country's oil revenue would be used to cover these premium payments to Iraqi soldiers and provide a precedent for distributing oil revenues directly to Iraqis "

Sounds easy, but first all current power brokers would need to be eliminated, not so easy.

[anne]

There we have from the lunatic who was ranting and raving about the dire threat to America from, well, from old people, we have a solution to the destruction of Iraq. No, not surging, that's not it,, not surging; the solution to the destruction of Iraq is not surging but drafting. If, say, Iraq only had an army, a drafted army, an army would be even now saving Iraq, and surging could be done with forever more. Imagine, if Iraq only had an army, a drafted army, an oil army even....

[anne]

Could any writing on Iraq be more offensive? On the day military researchers are telling us 17.8% of American soldiers returned from Iraq have suffered traumatic brain injuries, we find we could have avoided a $2 trillion and climbing cost of war and occupation, an estimated 650,000 Iraqi excess deaths, more than 50,000 American casualties, more than 100,000 American soldiers returned from Iraq and Afghanistan already awarded various disability status by October 2006; we could have avoided the physical and psychological and moral and material tragedy of Iraq by, be still my heart, drafting Iraqis to an army.

[anne]

http://www.gazette.com/common/printer/view.php?db=colgazette&id=21097

April 11, 2007

Brain injuries plague soldiers
By CARY LEIDER VOGRIN - GAZETTE

In what may be the largest study of its kind by a military installation, Fort Carson has found that 178 of every 1,000 soldiers returning to the post from the Middle East suffered from at least a mild form of traumatic brain injury.

"As it turns out, TBI may very well be the signature injury of this war," Col. John Cho said Tuesday while announcing the results of a 22-month study that included 13,440 soldiers. The post began screening soldiers for traumatic brain injuries in June 2005.

In all, 2,392 of the soldiers analyzed received a TBI diagnosis.

The injuries being seen among Fort Carson soldiers are overwhelmingly caused by explosions, said Cho, who commands Evans Army Community Hospital on post....

[anne]

We needed not to go to war with Iraq, for we were never threatened by Iraq. We needed to leave Iraq immediately from the week the government was deposed, for that was our supposed objective. We needed to leave Iraq immediately every day, week, month and year these 4 terrible years, but we are not leaving and the lunatic tragedy continues.

[ilsm]

We spend 4% of GDP a year for a modern military, it has to be used or we will realize it is wasted money.

We used the platinum hammer, used it up for the wrong purpose. We used a hammer when sandpaper was called for.

The stuff was never needed and has been wasted.

[anne]

Why, please answer, why does Laurence Kotlikoff use such distorting low figures for the physical, psyhological and material costs of Iraq? Kotlikoff is the very person who has threatened us by using costs in the trillions, impossible to bear costs, in affording Social Security and Medicare. Any cost of Iraq, especially human cost, was too much from my perspective, but at least admit the truly terrifying costs. At least that.

[anne]

The direct cost for the war in and occupation of Iraq this surgy year will be $170 billion or $14 billion a month, and this has nothing to do with the cost beyond real words of treating the 17.8% of soldiers returned with various traumatic brain injuries. What have we done to ourselves and Iraq?

Fine, draft every single Iraqi to the army and all will be well so we can leave. Just leave, leave immediately. Draft and leave; announce the draft and leave; leave.

[Elvis]

Were the United States to pay 3 million Iraqi soldiers $10,000 yearly, the bill would be $30 billion. This is a small amount relative to the savings it would accrue from leaving the country.
We could do a trial run in Detroit. About 1 million residents. Give each 15k to maintain their neighborhoods and see what happens.

We could use big planes and helicopters to airlift the cash. High schools could play football with the bundles of cash. Custer-Battles could consult.

Sorry, I'm dreaming. That would be giving needy Americans a helping hand. What was I thinking? First we would have to develop a demeaning regimen of paperwork and surly bureaucracy for them to wade through. Finally, they would be given vouchers that actually don't do anything except help the well-to-do.

I'm not going to poo-poo Mr. Kotlikoff's plan off-hand. If you want to preserve the geographic area, "Iraq" as a country, his plan has merit.

But is preserving Iraq as a single country the answer? Don't ask me--I didn't break it!

[Elvis]

anne wrote:
There we have from the lunatic who was ranting and raving about the dire threat to America from, well, from old people,

I had trouble believing this. So I did a search and indeed he is afraid of old people.

It's a variation of that Samuelson guy. War= we'll manage somehow. Social Security= doom.

[anne]

Precisely, Dear Elvis.

[maria]

There really is no way to repair or even atone for the unmeasurable evil we have done in Iraq. The best thing we could do would be to simply get out, defeated and hopefully humbled. But we will not even do that. Events will have to drive us out. And make us suffer something commensurate, I would hope, for justice's sake.

[anne]

Interestingly, possibly maddeningly, so far no major American paper has reported the Fort Carson traumatic brain injury study which I only accidentally found out about.

[anne]

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/11/opinion/l11iraq.html

When the Iraqis Show Us the Door

To the Editor:

"Iraq Protesters, Called by Cleric, Say U.S. Must Go":

With thousands of Iraqis, both Shiite and Sunni, engaging in peaceful protest and supporting democracy, it would seem that they've gotten the point.

Maybe it is not a question of when Congress or our president will withdraw troops. The Iraqi people should be allowed to practice democracy and determine the amount of time we have left in their country. It may very well be the galvanizing agent needed to bring the country together.

Americo Paez
Brooklyn, April 10, 2007

[anne]

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/10/world/middleeast/10iraq.html?ex=1333857600&en=1712c5c80d236f36&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss

April 10, 2007

Huge Protest in Iraq Demands U.S. Withdraw
By EDWARD WONG

BAGHDAD — Tens of thousands of protesters loyal to Moktada al-Sadr, the Shiite cleric, took to the streets of the holy city of Najaf on Monday in an extraordinarily disciplined rally to demand an end to the American military presence in Iraq....

[Bruce Hall]

We should be careful about using statistics without understanding. 178/1000 includes concussions... which do indeed happen from nearby explosions.

However, I agree that the tactic of using the U.S. military as policemen is unwise. The correct solution would have been to withdrawn immediately after Saddam was removed and let the factions within Iraq turn the country into a complete bloodbath. This would be in line with the humanistic, humanitarian ideals of the West.

Of course, if Iraq were taken over by those hostile to the U.S., the military could be sent in again to wipe them out and withdraw to see if a more agreeable government was established.

This is the proper use of the military... destruction. All of this rebuilding power plants and hospitals and schools and establishing a safe haven for the Kurds is total, unmitigated right-wing trash!

We all agree: give them freedom and give them death! Oh, hell. We should have just left the whole area to Saddam when he marched into Kuwait and let him start a larger general war there. That would have satisfied the environmentalists who didn't want us to purchase middle east oil... and it would have left Israel in the enviable position of saying it had to use nuclear weapons to defend itself after we left... obviously something we all wanted in the first place. Screw all of those U.N. sanctions against Saddam. He was the only one who brought stability to that part of the world. What's a little state-sponsored terror of its citizens compared with that?

But now, all we can do is rally around al-Sadr and his holy sponsorship of suicide and maltreatment of women. But, better to support him than any effort to bring stability and sanity to that part of the world. Right?

[wjd123]

Thank god, someone at last with a real plan to undo this Gordian knot we have tied ourselves into in Iraq. I don't know whether Laurence Kotlikoff plan can be implemented, but it shouldn't fail for lack of trying. I salute Mr. Kolikoff for his effort.

[anne]

"We should be careful about using statistics without understanding."

http://www.gazette.com/common/printer/view.php?db=colgazette&id=21097

In what may be the largest study of its kind by a military installation, Fort Carson has found that 178 of every 1,000 soldiers returning to the post from the Middle East suffered from at least a mild form of traumatic brain injury.

[anne]

"We should be careful about using statistics without understanding."

http://www.gazette.com/common/printer/view.php?db=colgazette&id=21097

Capt. Matthew Staton, 30, noticed he was having symptoms of TBI after returning home from a 2003-04 deployment during which he was exposed to multiple blasts.

"It's like getting your bell rung," he said of the explosions.

His short-term memory is affected, and he relies on a digital voice recorder and palmtop computer to remember things. He also is quick to anger.

Staton attends weekly rehabilitation sessions at Memorial Hospital and will be medically discharged from the Army.

He said the injury has been stressful not just for him, but his wife, too.

Another Army wife, Shelia Scott, said she knows what he's talking about. Her husband, Sgt. Leroy Scott, was in Iraq.

Scott, an Army medic, had been in Iraq for four months when his vehicle was ripped open by a roadside bomb in July 2005.

A skull fracture and bleeding on the brain were just two of many injuries. Scott's right leg was amputated below the knee and he also had several bone fractures and a collapsed lung.

The TBI — the injury that's the least apparent — has been one of the most difficult to deal with, Shelia Scott said.

She said her husband is easily angered and has difficulty concentrating and sleeping. He'll dwell on little things — the dishes not being done or the sidewalk not shoveled as the snow falls, she said.

"We don't know when he'll snap," she said. "It's hard on a family.

"When he does not sleep, I don't sleep. He will keep me up — turning lights on, turning the TV on."

Scott and his wife recently separated.

"The boys seem a lot happier because they don't have to walk on eggshells," she said of the couple's three children.

Still, she said she checks on her husband daily, stopping by their home in Falcon.

She also advocates for his health care as he transitions out of the Army.

"I worry," she said of her husband of 12 years.

"You can find people who can do great, skiing and swimming and just a wonderful story. But there's a lot of people who are suffering. The wives are suffering, the kids are suffering. Life's not ever going to be the same."

[donna]

Well that would have been the sensible plan all along, wouldn't it? No it was more important to give billions to Exxon, Halliburton, Blackwater and all the other oil company and defense contractor thieves.

This war was for profit, at the expense of both Iraq and our troops, as well as America. The sooner America wakes up to that, the better.

[anne]

Yes, I am increasingly understanding the statistics that some prefer we not understand or even know:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/11/washington/11veterans.html?ex=1318219200&en=57988c04bbbbd7d4&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss

October 11, 2006

Data Suggests Vast Costs Loom in Disability Claims
By SCOTT SHANE

Nearly one in five soldiers leaving the military after serving in Iraq and Afghanistan has been at least partly disabled as a result of service, according to documents of the Department of Veterans Affairs obtained by a Washington research group.

The number of veterans granted disability compensation, more than 100,000 to date, suggests that taxpayers have only begun to pay the long-term financial cost of the two conflicts. About 567,000 of the 1.5 million American troops who have served so far have been discharged.

"The trend is ominous," said Paul Sullivan, director of programs for Veterans for America, an advocacy group, and a former V.A. analyst.

Mr. Sullivan said that if the current proportions held up over time, 400,000 returning service members could eventually apply for disability benefits when they retired....

[anne]

So, then, 17.8% of soldiers returning from Iraq are found in time to have various traumatic brain injuries and thinking of a disability rate of 1 in 5 returning soldiers becomes terrifyingly reasonable.

While the casualty figure has here been given as 26,000, we understand easily from the statistics that more than 100,000 returning soldiers had been granted disability status as of October 1966. The figure is easily comprehensible simply from the impossibly sad finding for traumatic brain injury effecting 17.8% of returned soldiers.

What have we done?

[Bruce Hall]

Statistics:

The Americas
Nearly 130,000 people die annually on the highways and byways of the Americas. More than 44,500 of them die in the United States, where traffic crashes are the leading cause of death for Hispanics under 34 years of age.

According to Pan American Health Organization (PAHO) health statistics for the Americas for 2002, a total of 128,908 persons were killed in or died as result of road and traffic crashes in the Western Hemisphere in that year. Of those, more than 76 percent - 98,213 - died on the roads of the United States, Brazil, Mexico and Colombia. These are the nations with the largest populations in the Western Hemisphere.

Yet the knowledge currently exists to take action on a number of fronts to prevent these needless deaths and disabilities, and the immense loss and suffering they cause. Many programs and policies exist to prevent road traffic crashes. They include strategies to address rates of speed and alcohol consumption; promotion of helmets and seat belts and other restraints; and greater visibility of people walking and cycling. A concerted effort on the part of governments and their partners to improve road safety can make a world of difference.
**********
Solution: pull all drivers out of the U.S.
**********

hmmmm....

[maria]

Yeah, people get killed in the USA so that makes it fine and okay for us to kill lots of people (ours and theirs) in Iraq. Brilliant thinking, Bruce. The war should never have been started, period. It was stupidity beyond measure and it was intentional, based on lies, sold with lies, and there is little point in trying to redeem it in any fashion. And then one of its appropriate "flowers" is the beyond stupid John McCain, saying it was "necessary and just." I would hope, really hope, that that in itself will make it impossible for him to ever be President. In fact it ought to make it impossible for him to show his silly stupid face in public. But shameless he is and an idiot too.

[maria]

Priceless. Bush wants to dump his mess in somebody else's lap:

Bush Seeks Overseer For Iraq, Afghanistan

By Peter Baker and Thomas E. Ricks
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, April 11, 2007; A01

The White House wants to appoint a high-powered czar to oversee the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan with authority to issue directions to the Pentagon, the State Department and other agencies, but it has had trouble finding anyone able and willing to take the job, according to people close to the situation.

At least three retired four-star generals approached by the White House in recent weeks have declined to be considered for the position, the sources said, underscoring the administration's difficulty in enlisting its top recruits to join the team after five years of warfare that have taxed the United States and its military.

"The very fundamental issue is, they don't know where the hell they're going," said retired Marine Gen. John J. "Jack" Sheehan, a former top NATO commander who was among those rejecting the job. Sheehan said he believes that Vice President Cheney and his hawkish allies remain more powerful within the administration than pragmatists looking for a way out of Iraq. "So rather than go over there, develop an ulcer and eventually leave, I said, 'No, thanks,' " he said.

Has the US ever had a crazy President? We sure have one now.

[maria]

Bush reminds one of The Simpsons' episode with Bart as the "I didn't do it" kid. If you didn't see it, you missed something priceless. But Bush is almost as hilarious.

[Bruce Hall]

Maria,

I already agreed that we should have left Saddam alone... way back in 1990 and let the whole place go to hell.

You couldn't be more right... oops... correct.

A general war between Iraq and Iran, the overthrow of the Saudi government, the annihilation of the Kurds, Israel left to its own devices... all good things.

[anne]

Maria, please include the reference link when possible. That makes the Googling easier :) though not always possible I know.

[anne]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/10/AR2007041001776.html?hpid=topnews

Bush Seeks Overseer For Iraq, Afghanistan

By Peter Baker and Thomas E. Ricks
Washington Post
April 11, 2007

[There it is....]

[Bruce Webb]

Sorry the Kolikov plan is nutty. Are we going to pay for all the weapons, uniforms and food out of that same $10,000? How do you control all those guys? Put them in barracks surrounded by barbwire? All you would be missing is an Arbeit macht Frei sign over the gate.

"The removal of these 3 million men from the cities and countryside to army barracks would likely bring an immediate end to Iraq's horrific nightmare."

Yeah by starting a new one. Is this guy really purposing that all the physical work it takes to keep a civilian population fed and sheltered now be done by old men and the women? OR do we bring in Army platoons in leg irons? Because otherwise how do you keep them from just walking away?

'All army units would be assigned specific reconstruction tasks and be jointly commanded by a Shia, a Sunni, and a Kurd who would make unanimous decisions. If any threesome can't agree, they would be replaced by a threesome that can."

This shows no understanding of human nature whatsoever and would be a management nightmare. On what possible basis could you choose teams know in advance they would always be able to come to consensus? There will always be occassions where there is an honest disagreement with one party ending up objectively right. How do you control for that?

I could go on but this "plan" is flawed on so many levels that I had to double check to see that it was the work of an actual academic. It takes more to equip and manage 3,000,000 men than a salary check. If he was serious he would cost out the rest of the plan, as it is this plan floats somewhere in Cloud Coocoo land, seriously detached from any reality.

[spencer]

Bruce Webb is right.

This is just another version of what got us into this mess in the first place -- a proposal to solve the problem on the cheap based on a completely unrealistic reading of the situation on the ground.

Looks like another economist claiming there is a free lunch.

[maria]

Okay Bruce, I agree. In retrospect the First Gulf War was not a good idea, although it seemed so to many then. If Saddam had incorporated Kuwait into Iraq the world would not have come to an end. Bush I tried to convince us that he was going to invade Arabia, but that proved later to be simply untrue.

[STS]

Here's another vote with Bruce Webb: Kotlikoff is talking nonsense.

The power required to enforce a draft of the entire young male population of Iraq considerably exceeds the power required to simply police the streets -- which we're failing badly at.

Kotlikoff may be hearkening back to the idea of keeping the old Iraqi army intact and doing a limited, targeted and gradual de-Baathification instead of the abrupt and indiscriminate process Bremer adopted. Those choices in 2003 might have led to a somewhat less dramatic failure.

But having opened Pandora's box ...

[maria]

Spencer says:

This is just another version of what got us into this mess in the first place -- a proposal to solve the problem on the cheap based on a completely unrealistic reading of the situation on the ground.
*******************************

I would make only one correction. There was no "problem" with Iraq in the first place. The "problem" was invented to talk us into war. Fabricated, no more no less.

[Lafayette]

anne: "we could have avoided the physical and psychological and moral and material tragedy of Iraq by ... drafting Iraqis to an army."

Bremer made a colossal mistake when he disbanded the Iraqi Army, putting thousands of angry young men, with weapons training, onto the streets. Their army pay supported entire families.

It was stupid. Just paying them to stay in their barracks would have been a smarter.

[maria]

When you have a crazy President stories like this one are inevitable (and very believable):

http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?
type=domesticNews&storyid=2007-04-11T191736Z_01_N11231422
_RTRUKOC_0_US-FORD-BUSH-JOKE.xml&src=rss&rpc=22

[Lafayette]

maria: "There was no "problem" with Iraq in the first place."

You forget the genocide ... more than 500,000 thought killed at the hands of Saddam Hussien.

Yes, yes, I know ... minor importance to America, as long as the oil kept coming.

Still ...

[anne]

Having been harsh about this essay, because such a day seems to call for harshness on thinking of the physical and psychological cost of Iraq, I will temper the argument. Should Laurence Kotlikoff wish to recommend that we leave Iraq and offer assistance to Iraqis, whether for general Iraqi public service or specialized development programs, then I agree completely.

The way to leave Iraq justly is with an offer to the government, only an offer not a requirement, for United Nations peace monitors and economic aid.

[anne]

Lafayette, we cannot know history that was not history. Though I agree that the Iraqi army might better have been left, as a government was formed by Iraqis to control the army, I do not know the effects. I thought we had a matter of weeks after the government was deposed before an insurgency would form, so I favored leaving immediately. Never did I claim a peaceful resurrection if we were to leave, for that could not have been known.

The Iraqi tyranny was gone, though I did not favor a war to begin with, I favored leaving with the offer of aid I still favor and should at least give Laurence Kotlikoff credit for.

[anne]

What we seemed to be about from the beginning of the occupation was creating a little America in Iraq, though the governors of Iraq appeared to know astonishingly little of the country. Still, I have not the slightest idea of how we might have shaped 25 millions Iraqis to our liking and the idea strikes me in this day beyond colonialism as beyond fanciful.

[maria]

There is genocide in Africa and elsewhere, but we do not find ourselves obliged to intervene. Saddam's regime was brutal, but probably only a brutal regime could have held Iraq together. Perhaps it should not be held together, but I think that fact has to be understood in judging him. And as a reason for the war, come on, it was only latched onto when all the other lying reasons had been exposed as the lies they were. His treatment of the Kurds was never used to get us into the war. The warmongers who sold the war to the US didn't care about his treatment of the Kurds.

[Ricketson]

Isn't this basically the same as the Civilian Conservation Corps from the Great Depression?

The main problem that I see is that if this is mandatory, then the independent (non-state) economy would likely collapse because it would have no labor force.

However, if some variant of this plan does work, then we have a plan that could be used in every trouble-spot in the world.

P.S. Yes, I am aware that this proposal is satirical...but it is more sensible than anything that "real" leaders come up with.

[anne]

Ah, have I failed to understand completely? Was the column satirical, so that in thinking otherwise I missed all the intent? Have I been mistaken in reading and unfair in responding?

[sk]

We all remember how harsh the Irq sanction had been before the invasion. Certain kind of fertilzers were banned because they could be used to produce bombs and some medicines were also banned because they could be used to cure chemical weapons injury, etc.

According to the UN estimate, over one million Iraqis died because of the sanction.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_sanctions

"On May 10, 1996, appearing on 60 Minutes, Madeleine Albright (then U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations) was presented with a figure of half a million children under five having died from the sanctions. Not challenging this figure, she infamously replied "we think the price is worth it", [10] though she later rued the comment as ""stupid."[11]"

It's really uncomfortable to argue about who killed more people but still...

[anne]

No; I do not find satire but am open to being completely wrong, but if satire then how should we read this column? Please continue to explanation.

[wjd123]

"Has the US ever had a crazy President? We sure have one now." Peter Baker and Thomas E. Ricks

I see no reason to say this. And, furthermore, it lets Bush off the hook for his actions all to easily.

[anne]

Darn; we are now 2 days after a military medical study showing that 17.8% of soldiers returning from Iraq have traumatic brain injuries, but not a single major news organization has found the stuy worth reporting. This on a day when we learn of the extending of soldiers' time in Iraq to 15 months.

What are we about?

[anne]

Imagine a parent thinking of a child, a wife, a husband, a love, under such conditions, now for months longer.

[anne]

John Edwards has pledged to take our soldiers from Iraq; that means Edwards and Richardson and Kucinich are pledged to leave Iraq. Clinton is pledged to remain in Iraq. We have only to learn of Obama's stance. I am so grateful to Edwards.

[mrrunangun]

What a brilliant idea. Simply draft all those Iraqi insurgents into the army. No doubt that as soon as the draft notice arrives in the mail, those law abiding gents will all drop their AKs, grenade launchers, and IEDs pronto and hustle on down their local draft boards for their induction physicals. This guy Kotlikoff must be from Harvard.

[maria]

Opinions to ponder; some comments especially good:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,2055132,00.html

[anne]

Again having read through the column, there is no satire that I can find. What I find from the beginning is a statistical downplaying of the human and material costs of the war and occupation, a suggestion that a universal, multi-cultural public service draft be instituted in Iraq and supported by American and Iraqi revenues, but no sense of what the author wishes about the occupation of Iraq other than a possible intimation that American and Iraqi sentiments are leading to a withdrawal and public service could facilitate this.

"Were the United States to pay 3 million Iraqi soldiers $10,000 yearly, the bill would be $30 billion. This is a small amount relative to the savings it would accrue from leaving the country. It would also make service in the Iraqi army highly desirable...."

[Lafayette]

anne: "The Iraqi tyranny was gone, though I did not favor a war to begin with ..."

Gone? Gone where, Anne?

We are talking about genocide. We saw it with Hitler, and the world did nothing to stop it. Ditto Stalin. Ditto the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia. Ditto the starvation politics of Kim il Sung. Ditto Darfour.

And, the world does nothing. Bloggers fulminate, but the world does nothing, nothing, nothing.

Lead-head was admittedly opportunistic in his willful revenge of Hussein’s attempt on Bush the Father’s life on the occasion of his victory tour that took him to Kuwait (1993). Yes, such is no reason whatsoever for a war.

Tell that to the families of the victims - the 85,000 Kurds, the estimated more than 200,000 Shiites. See what they say in response and watch the agonizing disbelief in their eyes.

Genocide is a good reason for war. Because for as long as those who commit genocide do not understand that such is intolerable, they will simply continue.

Those who do not say “No, genocide is unacceptable.”, tacitly agree with the crime committed. It’s time the UN had some sting in the matter, to replace its inveterate self-masturbatory palaver.

[anne]

While the writer of the column is an economist, that makes no difference in terms of mentioning that the war in and occupation of Iraq have amounted to "$410 billion." The direct spending alone on Iraq in fiscal 2005, 2006 and 2007, is $100 and $120 and $170 billion respectively. The direct spending total for these 3 years alone is $390. There was also fiscal 2003 and 2004, and there have been tens of billions more in direct spending these years. Then, we need think only to the indirect spending for the medical tragedy that is Iraq and we must think to this tragedy however painful for the deaths and woundings are there. To lesson the costs of Iraq, has to be morally untenable. But, such lessoning is a commonplace.

[anne]

To lessen is not to lesson, though I suppose it could be so; good grief.

Lafayette, I am completely sympathetic to your plea but have no solution. Giving water purifiers and solar cookers for Darfur is not enough, but we give nonetheless and protest and hope. There are reminders of Darfur through the Catholic church and a street away through a Jewish Temple. I have no solution, beyond being generous and protesting, but war is personally terrible for me.

The tyrannical Iraqi government was deposed. The Iraqi tyranny was gone in a matter of weeks in 2003. We went to war in Iraq for regime change, the regime was changed. We stayed to occupy Iraq, with almost complete public support, and there has been tragedy on tragedy.

[anne]

Though I sympathize with pleas against tyranny, we did not go to war in and occupy Iraq as a humanitarian strategy. The only humanitarian strategy I find is leaving Iraq immediately, and offering assistance. I have no other solution, however foolish choosing a hopeful peace may seem to a continual violence.

[Lafayette]

Though I sympathize with pleas against tyranny, we did not go to war in and occupy Iraq as a humanitarian strategy.

It is not difficult for any intelligent person to agree with that statement. But, the effect, regardless of the cause, is that a genocidal tyrant exists no more.

Do the ends justify lead-head’s lies that were the means? Ask the families of the victims.

I suggest that our perspectives are perhaps diametrically opposed to theirs. Our noble, democratic objectives – that most Americans at first found justified – are now thrown by the wayside, because they were not achieved.

I suggest that the Iraqis could not care a fig about democracy and, to them, vengeance of their loved ones was far more important. It is that blind vengeance that will carry them to their own destruction, regardless of whether “our boys” are there or not. (And, the irony of the matter is that had democracy been instituted, lead-head would be a hero in America today regardless of his lies -- because, in politics, the ends do justify the means.)

So, you are right, anne, let’s get the hell out. You say immediately, I say in a year. The difference is about a 500 American lives (if we are lucky).

[Heretic]

I have loads of respect for Dr. K as an economist. I have read all of his books and papers. However, this sort of proposal shows a fundamental misunderstanding of human nature that is surprising. I would be inclined to conclude that it is designed to make some sort of point, as opposed to being a serious proposal.
The fundamental fact is that a draft is a form of slavery. The idea would seem to be that since freedom did not work, let's try slavery. Better yet, let's enslave people based upon their age and gender. Once enslaved, the slaves would be forced at the point of a gun to do good deeds for the benevolent state. What could possibly go wrong? The would, after all, be well paid slaves, so why would they have any right to complain? Sounds like the sort of governance model that should be propagated about the world.

[Bruce Hall]

Lafayette:

Anne has an absolutely valid point that based on dollars per person spent in Iraq, there is no economical reason to continue. The cost of continuing to struggle against the entire Iraqi population is way too high.

Is it our place to try to protect a few weak and innocent when the vast majority of the 25 million Iraqis have spoken out that they do not want us interfering in their right to kill and maim each other with impunity?

Your specious argument that Saddam was a tyrant who was responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths has no bearing on the fact that once we freed the Iraqis from Saddam we were obligated to let them fight it our for who would create the next tyranny.

True, Iran, Syria, and various multi-national organizations have been providing the means for the violence to continue... but, really, Lafayette, do two wrongs make a right? And besides, those nations and organizations have a legitimate right to involve themselves in Iraq because it is so close to them. And besides, they just pump a little extra oil to finance those operations so it is no big economic deal to them.

We, on the other hand, are spending at least 1-2% of our GNP on this effort. So, you see that from both an economic and ethical position, we should have abandoned Iraq immediately after the invasion and show do so now.

There is no arguing with logic.

And besides, this is also a holy war and we have a constitutional prohibition from interfering in the right to practice religion. Al-Sadr could sue the hell out of us.

We are wrong on so many fronts.

[maria]

"Our noble, democratic objectives – that most Americans at first found justified – are now thrown by the wayside, because they were not achieved."

What a load of baloney. These were never our objectives, until the warmongers had run out of other excuses for the war. The idea that Bush&Co. want "democracy" in the Middle East is preposterous. To take these people at their word is a sure sign of a, sorry to say, Bushdupe.

[Ricketson]

I was wrong about the satirical nature of the essay. I confused the author with someone else.

Still, I agree with Heretic's comment: this proposal is too ridiculous to be taken seriously. Either it is an illustration of the insane policies that would have to be implemented to eliminate the violence in Iraq, or it is an attempt to focus our attention on the demographic group that is directly responsible for the troubles in the hope that we can figure out how to prevent them from continuing.

Sorry for distracting things with the comment about it being satirical.

[anne]

No; the comment was worth considering and made me read the column again, and focus on what a possible peaceful aid program for Iraq could have been or could be however currently unlikely. Reading from different perspectives is helpful for me. Satire however would be difficult, but there have been "Catch-22" and "MASH."

[Thomas T. Schweitzer]

Laurence Kotlikoff's article is a dreadfully bad joke. (I mean: both dreadful and a joke.) Imagine 3 million unarmed draftees working on re-building Iraq. What a tempting target for suicide bombers! Being a well-known professor of economics is no excuse for a complete disregard of realities.

[wjd123]

A Problem of Legitimacy

Iraqi conscripts will be trained for useful work in which they can make a life for themselves once they are discharged. All the while they will be strengthening their society instead of being indoctrinated or compelled into the service of the insurgents. They also have a cover since the state is now compelling them. It does no good for insurgents to threaten their families because the youth they would recruit form are conscripted; they don't volunteer. The insurgents can't induce them with money since the state will be paying them, and paying them very well. The state will pay them, train them, and employ them in an effort to gain their loyality. For those youth who would rather remain insurgents the state will know who they are.

There is nothing unusual about the state compelling us, particularly in a time of crisis to society. The law with its sanctions compels.

Iraq is in the throws of a crisis. If the state wants to draft its youth to get them off the streets, train them, give them hammers and saws--not guns--to rebuild the country then the state is within its rights. The other alternative appears to be anarchy, violence, poverty, expanded hatred, with the state finally breaking apart along with society.

The government Iraq has today may be just as corrupt and far less effective in delivering services to society than that of Saddam, but it has more legitimacy. However, I doubt if legitimacy will count for much if it can't reform and be able to deliver services efficiently.

This is a plan the Iraq government will have to implement, not us. Our involvement--material support--swings both ways: it helps the mission to succeed while robbing the government of legitimacy. But at least our troops will be gone which will lessen the effect of deligitimizing the Iraqi government.

The question is do enough of the people of Iraq want to build a society together? How can you marginalize those who don't? From today's vantage point the answer to the first question doesn't look positive. That might change once security is provided. The answer to the second question is the state must become efficient in seeing that services are provided and be accepted as legitimate. Without security that won't happen. Kotlikoff's plan is way to do both, bring about security while delivering services.

If most Iraqis want to live together, this is a plan the Iraqi government would be wise to consider. If they want to live apart the Biden plan of loose federation seem the way to go.

Bush still doesn't have a plan because the more Americans are seen as the enablers of the Iraqi government the less legitimacy the Iraqi government will have.

[anne]

What is needed of course, what has been needed these 4 tragic lunatic years, is for America to leave Iraq immediately. Of course though we are not leaving but surging, and the surging had found a continuing of the tragedy for America and Iraq. We must leave Iraq immediately.

[anne]

The suggestion of the column is not satire and is beyond satire of course, but shows a bizarre lack of understanding of the tragedy of occupation these 4 years and the need not for drafting or for un-drafting but for leaving Iraq. We need to end the occupation, to leave Iraq immediately; therein has been the sane and moral course these 4 years.

[reason]

ummm...
WHO should implement this plan? Surely, it would be personally reasonable to suggest to the iraqi government that they could do this, and give them the money, but how could the US possibly do this? Gather large numbers of hostile inhabitants together and give them weapons and weapons training (and then run like hell)?
Yes it probably satirical, either that or insane.

[anne]

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/13/opinion/13fri3.html

April 13, 2007

The Warriors' Second Front at Home

Investigators have concluded that the scandal of the shamefully neglected outpatients at the Walter Reed Army Medical Center is likely a systemic problem afflicting wounded veterans at other military hospitals. This is only one of the disheartening findings by a panel that reported a "perfect storm" of troubles afflicting Walter Reed. These ranged from the Army's failure to anticipate the high flow of casualties from Iraq and Afghanistan to the "Byzantine" ratings system that puts soldiers through four separate hearings to determine — or discourage — their needed level of care.

Decrying an "almost palpable disdain" toward outpatients, investigators found treatment had been hobbled by personnel shortages that were compounded by the Bush administration's use of privatization as a cost cutter. Such supposed savings, in a war with a runaway budget, must end immediately.

But these are mere symptoms of the "greater dysfunction" across the Army's medical program uncovered by the panel. Members concluded that the Pentagon is failing to deal adequately with the signature wounds of the Iraq conflict — the thousands of cases of brain damage from roadside bombs and of post-traumatic stress disorder. It is crucial that the Army create the "center of excellence" recommended by the panel to specialize in research and treatment of these grievous scars of brain and psyche....

[wjd123]

reason,

You misread the article. These conscripts aren't armed with weapons but with tools to rebuild their country. More Peace Core than Army.

"The role of the enlarged Iraqi army would not involve bearing arms or training in the use of arms. Rather the role would be to reconstruct the country." Kotlikoff

[wjd123]

reason,

Peace Corps

[Movie Guy]

Bruce Hall Apr 12, 2007 10:37:24 AM

Priceless!

[reason]

wjd123
Agreed - but they would still need protection (not least from each other).

But then I have some other questions
1. Skills? Are all these jobs unskilled for just any conscript?
2. Isn't this (shock horror) communist?

[anne]

Having an Iraqi peace corps is wonderful, as long as we are gone, long gone, immediately gone from Iraq. Then the Iraqis will organize themselves as they wish, and we may well think to our own peace corps as well. What is needed however is not for us to do this or do that or do the other, but just to leave and stop the needless bleeding of America. There is all the peace we need in leaving, as there would have been peace these awful years.

[anne]

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/13/opinion/l13iraq.html

Four Years Later in Iraq

To the Editor:

After recounting the grim situation in Iraq, you conclude, "There is no possible triumph in Iraq and very little hope left."

But President Bush and Republicans have a huge political hope: to run out the clock on the war until the end of Mr. Bush's term — no matter what the cost in additional lives and suffering — in order to avoid politically disastrous blame for the inevitable defeat.

If Mr. Bush really cared about our troops, their families and the welfare of Iraqis, he would not persist in this cynical folly.

Sid Tamm
Newton, Mass., April 12, 2007

[anne]

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/12/opinion/12thu1.html?ex=1334030400&en=e9ca3f932ea49987&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss

April 12, 2007

Four Years Later in Iraq

Two months into the Baghdad security drive, the gains Mr. Bush is banking on have not materialized. More American soldiers continue to arrive, and their commanders are talking about extending the troop buildup through the fall or into early next year. After four years, the political trend is even more discouraging.

There is no possible triumph in Iraq and very little hope left.

[We have desperately needed to leave Iraq for 4 years, we desperately need to leave immediately still. Were there triumph this very day, there would still be no triumph only tragic abject failure. We must leave Iraq immediately.]

[anne]

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/13/opinion/13fri3.html?hp

April 13, 2007

The Warriors' Second Front at Home

Investigators have concluded that the scandal of the shamefully neglected outpatients at the Walter Reed Army Medical Center is likely a systemic problem afflicting wounded veterans at other military hospitals. This is only one of the disheartening findings by a panel that reported a "perfect storm" of troubles afflicting Walter Reed. These ranged from the Army's failure to anticipate the high flow of casualties from Iraq and Afghanistan to the "Byzantine" ratings system that puts soldiers through four separate hearings to determine — or discourage — their needed level of care.

Decrying an "almost palpable disdain" toward outpatients, investigators found treatment had been hobbled by personnel shortages that were compounded by the Bush administration's use of privatization as a cost cutter. Such supposed savings, in a war with a runaway budget, must end immediately.

But these are mere symptoms of the "greater dysfunction" across the Army's medical program uncovered by the panel. Members concluded that the Pentagon is failing to deal adequately with the signature wounds of the Iraq conflict — the thousands of cases of brain damage from roadside bombs and of post-traumatic stress disorder....

[anne]

The military has found an astounding 17.8% of soldiers returning from Iraq have suffered a traumatic brain injury. This is just part of the needless lunacy of the tragedy that has been our occupation of Iraq. Please may we leave Iraq immediately, for the rest is only the vision of lunacy.

[anne]

When Joseph Stigltz and Linda Bilmes wrote of a trillion dollar war in and occupation of Iraq they were generally ignored, they were attended to when the cost of war and occupation rose to $2 trillion. Still, however, when they wrote of hundreds of billions of dollars for the medical care of soldiers an Assistant Secretary of Defense called the Dean of Harvard's Kennedy School to complain, which means to threaten Linda Bilmes. Be assured there will be no more such calls, because we know now how dear how severe the human costs of Iraq have been and will be for us.

[Saxdrop]

But what does "anne" have to say? I really wish she would chime in here at some point.

[maria]

Scott Ritter has a piece everyone should read, especially Democrats:

By Scott Ritter

In the months leading up to President Bush’s ill-fated invasion of Iraq, I traveled around the world speaking to various international groups, including many parliamentary assemblies. I spoke about democracy and the need of any nation or group of nations espousing democracy as a standard to embrace the ideals and values of justice and due process in accordance with the rule of law. I spoke of international law, especially as it was manifested in the charter of the United Nations (a document signed and adopted by all of the countries I visited).

Invariably, my presentation focused on the nation in question, whether it was Italy, Denmark, the Netherlands, Japan or Great Britain, and the status of its relationship with the United States. As an American, I said, I appreciated each nation’s embrace of the United States as a friend and ally. However, as a strong believer in the rule of law, I deplored the trend among America’s so-called friends to facilitate a needless confrontation which would severely harm the U.S. in the long run. These nations were hesitant to stand up to the United States even though they knew the course of action planned for Iraq was wrong.

Such permissive submission was deplorable, and invariably led to a comment from me about the status of genuine sovereignty in the face of American imperial power. If a nation was incapable of defending its sovereign values and interests, then it should simply acknowledge its status as a colony of the United States, pull down its disgraced national flag and raise the Stars and Stripes.

Now the tables have turned. Americans, through the will of the people as expressed in the November 2006 election, voiced their dissatisfaction with the conduct of the American war in Iraq, and empowered a new Democratic-controlled Congress to reassert itself as a separate but equal branch of government—especially when it came to matters pertaining to war and the threat of war.

This new Democratic leadership has failed egregiously. Not only has the speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, been unable to orchestrate any meaningful legislation to bring the war in Iraq to an end, but in mid-March she carelessly greased the tracks for a whole new conflict. By excising language from a defense appropriations bill which would have required President Bush to seek the approval of Congress prior to initiating any military attack on Iran, Pelosi terminated any hope of slowing down the Bush administration’s mad rush to war.

Despite the fact that Congress was only stating through this language a simple reflection of constitutional mandate, Speaker Pelosi and others felt that the inclusion of such verbiage put the security of the state of Israel at risk by eliminating important “policy options” for the president of the United States. In short, Israeli national security interests trumped the Constitution of the United States.

I consider myself to be a friend of Israel, a status which has been demonstrated repeatedly through words and deeds from January-February 1991, when I was involved in the effort to stop Iraq Scud missiles from striking Israel during the 1991 Gulf War, to the period between October 1994 and June 1998 when I served as the lead liaison between the United Nations weapons inspectors and Israeli intelligence, working to find a final accounting of Iraq’s proscribed weapons of mass destruction. I know only too well the precarious reality of Israel’s security situation, and am sympathetic to its need to proactively deal with threats before they manifest themselves in a manner which threatens Israel’s ability to survive as a nation-state.

However, as an American who served on active duty in time of war as an officer of Marines, I also remember the oath I took to “uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic.” As such, I am troubled by the recent actions of Speaker Pelosi and other members of Congress who have not only abrogated their collective responsibility to uphold and defend the Constitution but have taken actions which, under normal circumstances and involving any other nation, would border on treasonous. Our collective duty as Americans must center on defending the very document, the Constitution, which defines who we are and what we are as a people and a nation. To have our elected representatives flagrantly push aside their constitutional responsibilities in the name of the security interests of another nation is unthinkable. And yet it has just happened, apparently without consequence.

Sadly, the new Democratic Congress has cemented its status as yet another iteration of a system which long ago sold its soul to special interests. Democrats can cackle about Republican scandals, including the Jack Abramoff affair, which brought down Rep. Tom DeLay among others. But history will show that the Pelosi-led sellout to Israeli special interests endangered the viability and security of America as a sovereign state governed by the rule of law more than Jack Abramoff ever could.

In this time of constitutional crisis, the American people need to wake up and demand that the basic tenets of the Constitution be adhered to. Congress is solely empowered by the Constitution to declare war. Demanding that the president of the United States adhere to this prerequisite is a logical and patriotic stance. Allowing any non-American interest, even one possessing such highly charged political and emotional sensitivities as Israel, to dictate otherwise represents nothing more than a capitulation of sovereignty. We the people need to rally around this defense of sovereignty. We must demand not only that Congress reassert its constitutional responsibilities and authority by demanding the president obey the letter of the law when it comes to war, whether against Iran or any other nation, but also to place in check the anti-American activities of one of the most powerful lobbies in Washington, D.C., the American-Israeli Public Affairs Committee.

For decades AIPAC has operated in the shadows of American foreign policy decision-making, exerting its influence on elected officials away from the public scrutiny of the very constituents who elected those officials to begin with. It is impossible to hold someone accountable for actions that are kept secret, and as such AIPAC’s ability to secretly influence American foreign and national security policies represents a flagrant insult and threat to the very essence of American democracy. I am not advocating the dissolution of AIPAC. However, I am demanding that AIPAC be treated as any other representative of a foreign nation is treated. It should have to register as an agent of a foreign power so that the totality of its interactions with American officials can become a part of the public record. We require this of all other nations, including our good friends the British.

To state that AIPAC, and by extension Israel, is above the law in this regard is to acknowledge the reality that American national sovereignty no longer matters when it comes to the state of Israel. So be it. But then we are, collectively, no better than those nations I mocked prior to the invasion of Iraq in 2003 as “colonies” of the United States. So if we are to continue to permit AIPAC to operate as an undeclared agent of a foreign nation, and to influence American foreign and national security policymaking at the expense of our Constitution, then we should acknowledge our true status as nothing more than a colony of Israel, pull down the Stars and Stripes and raise the Star of David over our nation’s capitol. While representing the final act of submission, it would also be the first truly honest act that occurred in Washington, D.C., in many years.

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/the_final_act_of_submission/

[calmo]

Thanks maria, I wonder if Pelosi's folly is as serious as Scott makes out. By excising language from a defense appropriations bill which would have required President Bush to seek the approval of Congress prior to initiating any military attack on Iran, Pelosi terminated any hope of slowing down the Bush administration’s mad rush to war. If that language was left in would President Bush have simply vetoed the bill? His expression "greased the rails" (maybe "mad rush to war" too) plays to our romantic hearts but not to our noodles.
AIPAC nonetheless is an under-reported political force and I appreciate his horn on it.

[Voltaire]

Let's see, when did all this war nonsense start:

War of 1812... An attempt to land grab Canada
Manifest Destiny as motive.

Civil War...South exploits slaves, North expolits South, South wants out, North does not want to give up cash cow.

Texas Revolution...A good war, Santa Anna was a dictatorial ego maniac trying to take guns aways from Texans, big no no.

Mexican War..A good war, somehow Santa Anna forgot about his blood nose (TR) and proceeded to get his head kicked. US decides it didn' want Mexico after all.

Spanish-American War...A lot of good that did Cuba.

Spanish-American War (part II)...The Phillipine-American war. US loses it's viriginity on the way to building the American Empire. The booster of Manifest Destiny drops off and the payload of American Exceptionalism rockets on.

WWI...The mistake of 1917.

WWII... (World War I part b) necessary, but not a good war.

Korea...Civil War in another country half way around the world, their business not ours.

Vietnam...dito. Didn't learn much from the French experience did we.

Desert Storm I... 'Our interests' have no business being the natural resources of another country. You want oil, trade for it.
Unless of course you are an empire then all is our interest.

Enduring Freedom...(any one ever question the multiple definitions of enduring). Dito.

What got me was Scott's innocent refrain: 'but I was counting on the Dems' ha...the military industrial complex web snares all. The fiasco we are now in has been building for over 100 years with both parites equally responsible.

[wjd123]

Agreed - but they would still need protection (not least from each other).

But then I have some other questions
1. Skills? Are all these jobs unskilled for just any conscript?
2. Isn't this (shock horror) communist?--reason

reason,

Just saw your post. Sorry I'm so late in getting back to you.

I can't speak for Mr. Kotlikoff, but this is how I would see the plan working.

Any objection one could raise against this plan would be an objection one could raise against any conscripted Army. And we've had conscripted Armies. Were they communistic?

Yes conscripts will need protection from their hated toward each other. That you manage with discipline and punishment.

Since these Iraqi conscripts will be rebuilding their country and they themselves will need the same basic services they had when they were civilians, almost every set of job skills will be needed.

Our conscripted Army tested troops to get some idea of their ability. It would try to send them to training that they would be fit for. But the Army's needs came first. That would probably be the fate of Iraqi conscripts.

Some might not like living together and some might not like the idea of rebuilding in a Sunni or Shite areas. Army's do their best to sell you on doing your duty, on seeing it as a good, but underneath it all is the threat of punishment.

Is this coersion? Yes. But this is true of every law that Congress passes which has a sanction attached to it.

Eighteen is the legal voting age in Iraq. Since conscripts can vote there is always the opportunity to vote people in that will vote conscription out.

Once the national crisis has passed, I suspect conscription will be gotten rid of along with those $10,000 salaries.

Conscripts may not like their situation but they will be well paid for enduring it. You might even call their generous pay a bribe. Nothing unusual in that part of the world.