The Draft Not Called a Draft?

Good man Al Schumann has already covered the main points in depth, here:

"...Faced with a series of crises, created by what passes for ideology amongst the elite, the Democrats put out a feeler for the market-readiness of old wine in hope'n'change bottles. They want shabbily compensated, compulsory labor as a means of delaying a reckoning for imperial botchery. The sensible thing would be to abandon the misbegotten project. There's no fix for it. Managerial royalism in any cause has nothing to offer, no matter how much enthusiastic "human capital" is poured into propping up stooge regimes and pasting smiley faces on cruel exploitation. It's a cynical ploy and won't change a thing. They may however manage to put a number of ingenuous humanitarians in harm's way...."

When discussing this:

"US soldiers in combat could use an assist from a civilian workforce while trying to rebuild war-torn nations, President Barack Obama said Wednesday.

Speaking at a town hall in Racine, Wisconsin, Obama called for sending a 'civilian expeditionary force' to Afghanistan and Iraq to help overburdened military troops build infrastructure. His remarks were first reported by The Associated Press.

'So what I’m trying to say is, don’t put all the burden on the military.  Make sure that we’ve got a civilian expeditionary force,' said the president, adding that the civilian force would build schools, bridges and roads in regions cleared by the military as safe...."

http://rawstory.com/rs/2010/0630/obama-civilian-expeditionary-force-aid-wearied-troops/

Which all seems rather ominous in light of discussions held recently, over Dead Horse way, especially on the topic of Iran, where Rob Payne writes (with seeming prescience), that:

"...And even though attacking Iran is against our best interests Obama just may see it as in his own best interest to attack Iran at this point. We will have to wait and see, notice that we have nothing at all to say in these matters, being dispensable and all. Remember as well that if Israel attacks Iran it was done as part of U.S. policy, that is after all, what we pay Israel to do...."

And at the Counterpunch, where Conn Hallinan spells out the apparent rhetorical and material build up to an attack on Iran:

"Crazy talk about the Middle East seems to be escalating, backed up by some pretty ominous military deployments. First, the department of scary statements:

First up, Shabtai Shavit, former chief of the Israeli spy agency Mossad, speaking June 21 at Bar Ilan University, Tel Aviv on why Israel should launch a pre-emptive strike at Iran: 'I am of the opinion that, since there is an ongoing war, since the threat is permanent, since the intention of the enemy in this case is to annihilate you, the right doctrine is one of presumption and not retaliation.'

Second up, Uzi Arad, Israeli prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s national security advisor, speaking before the Jewish Agency in Jerusalem June 22 on his belief that the 'international community' would support an Israeli strike at Iran' 'I don’t see anyone who questions the legality of this or the legitimacy.'

Third up, Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi speaking to reporters at the G-8 meeting in Toronto June 26: 'Iran is not guaranteeing a peaceful production of nuclear power [so] the members of the G-8 are worried and believe absolutely that Israel will probably react preemptively.'

Fourth up, Central Intelligence Director Leon Panetta predicting on ABC’s “This Week” program June 27 that Iran could have two nuclear weapons by 2012: 'We think they [Iran] have enough low-enriched uranium for two weapons…and while there is continuing debate [within Iran] right now about whether or not they ought to proceed with a bomb…they clearly are developing their nuclear capacity.' He went on to say that the U.S. is sharing intelligence with Israelis and that Tel Aviv is 'willing to give us the room to be able to try to change Iran diplomatically and culturally and politically....'

...And it isn’t all talk. 

Following up the London Times report that Saudi Arabia had given Israel permission to fly through Saudi airspace to attack Iran, the Jerusalem Post, the Islam Times and the Iranian news agency Fars report that the Israeli air force has stockpiled equipment in the Saudi desert near Jordan. 

According to the Post supplies were unloaded June 18 and 19 outside the Saudi city of Tabuk, and all civilian flights into the area were canceled during the two day period. The Post said that an “anonymous American defense official” claimed that Mossad chief Meir Dagan was the contact man with Saudi Arabia and had briefed Netanyahu on the plans. 

The Gulf Daily News reported June 26 that Israel has moved warplanes to Georgia and Azerbaijan, which would greatly shorten the distance Israeli planes would have to fly to attack targets in northern Iran.

The U.S currently has two aircraft carriers—the Truman and the Eisenhower—plus more than a dozen support vessels in the Gulf of Hormuz, the strategic choke point leading into the Gulf of Iran..." 

All of which may prove unconnected.

Or not.

But, wouldn't it play out rather conveniently for Imperial Barack, and yes, his Republican counter-stooges, if a "civilian expeditionary force" found itself slotted into a number of pacification regimes in existing war zones, to relieve some of the combat troops for a widening of the theater of war?

h/t SMBIVA