Security

Should the U.S. draft cybersecurity experts?

The United States has a shortage of workers skilled in IT security. Thus, we are unable to protect critical infrastructure from terrorist threats. FUD or real? What is the solution?

Throughout history, men and women have answered the call. Is this yet again one of those times?

Secretary of Defense Robert Gates issued a directive in June of 2009, creating U.S. Cyber Command (USCYBERCOM). The military unit was assigned the following mission:

"USCYBERCOM plans, coordinates, integrates, synchronizes, and conducts activities to: direct the operations and defense of specified Department of Defense information networks. And when directed, conduct full-spectrum military cyberspace operations in order to enable actions in all domains, ensure US/Allied freedom of action in cyberspace and deny the same to our adversaries."

Getting past the military-speak, USCYBERCOM is responsible for defending the digital assets of the United States. USCYBERCOM was to be fully operational by October 1, 2010.

IOC was delayed

In military parlance, Initial Operational Capacity (IOC) was finally achieved on May 21, 2010. As with any complex endeavor, there are bound to be delays. But, one of the reasons put forth as to why, was not expected.

According to Stars and Stripes, in September of 2010, General Keith Alexander, Commander of USCYBERCOM, told Congress the command staff was in place, but he was having trouble filling many of the remaining positions:

"This is going to take time for us to generate the force,"

General Alexander also said:

"If you were to ask me, what is the biggest challenge that we currently face? It's generating the people that we need to do this mission."

Another example Secretary Janet Napolitano, Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has been dealing with a similar problem since 2009. To a point where the DHS initiated a recruiting campaign:

"The new hiring authority, which results from a collaborative effort between DHS, the Office of Personnel Management and the Office of Management and Budget, allows the Department to staff up to 1,000 positions over three years across all DHS components to fulfill critical cybersecurity roles."

It seems these positions are not filled either.

It is hard to deny the need for cybersecurity workers in the public sector. It seems the private sector is also looking for a significant number of cybersecurity professionals. With the competition for skilled people and national security at stake, what is the answer?

Possible solution

I recently listened to a NPR podcast explaining how Estonia exemplifies a country able to defend itself against cyberattacks. Following the cyberattacks in 2007, Estonia created the Cyber Defense League, a group of computer and networking specialists willing to volunteer their service as a cohesive military unit tasked to protect Estonia's electronic infrastructure.

In the podcast, Estonia's Defense Minister, Jaak Aaviksoo mentioned that having a command like the Cyber Defense League is so important, the government may institute a draft to make sure the appropriate experts are available:

"We are thinking of introducing this conscript service, a cyberservice."

Minister Aaviksoo continues:

"This is an idea that we've been playing around [with]. We don't have the mechanism or laws in place, but it might be one option."

Closer to home

If that seems far away, I found similar ideas being presented by people here in the United States. In this Government Information Security Blog post, Erik Laykin suggests the following:

"I propose the creation of a National Cyber Corps, a true public-private partnership with responsibility and authority to safeguard America's key information infrastructure.

The National Cyber Corps would be an elite, dedicated, civilian body of our country's best and brightest IT professionals. It would be a nimble group with a mandate to operate across all government departments and address a variety of needs."

Mr. Laykin offers more detail:

As envisioned, the National Cyber Corps would be a specific, centralized organization with access to and authority over all civilian departments within the government, but it would also coordinate and collaborate with the military.

In both part one and part two of his blog post, Mr. Laykin refers to the U.S. Coast Guard as an existing organization with traits similar to those required by the National Cyber Corps:

"Just as the specialty service patrols, protects and defends our coastal waters and tributaries, the National Cyber Corps would monitor, maintain, and mend our public and private cybersecurity. In many respects, fiber optics that transmit information in the 21st century are no different than the Mississippi tributaries that transported goods in the 19th century."

Not wanting to add ambiguity, but if the U.S. Coast Guard is to be an example, it should be known that in time of war, the U.S. Coast Guard's mission statement directs the service to come under the authority of the U.S. Navy.

Need your help

I'm trying to get a handle on this, but, it's bigger than one person. So, I need your help. Should countries, including the United States follow Estonia's lead? Then, the obvious question: Is it important enough to consider conscription?

About

Information is my field...Writing is my passion...Coupling the two is my mission.

276 comments
richard.artes
richard.artes

Maybe they should recruit from overseas! I've heard there are a lot of underpaid, overqualified people in 3rd worls countries like India!

AnsuGisalas
AnsuGisalas

to China... save everybody a lot of trouble :p :p :p

Michael Kassner
Michael Kassner

http://www.military.com/news/article/senators-say-military-cyber-ops-not-disclosed.html The following quote caught my attention: "The Senate Armed Services Committee voiced concerns that cyber activities were not included in the quarterly report on clandestine activities. But Vickers, in his answer, suggested that such emerging high-tech operations are not specifically listed in the law -- a further indication that cyber oversight is still a murky work in progress for the Obama administration."

seanferd
seanferd

What is interesting is how the "reasoning" is eaten whole most of the time.

Orodreth
Orodreth

IMHO, the word "draft" in your article kind of pushed the Cyber Security Agency discussion in the wrong direction. As Chief Mullen states the military (and intelligence) had taken cyber security steps. A CSA needs to be created under DHS and it would need the authority to propose, regulate and enforce security standards on critical public/private infrastructure. For instance, physically and virtually isolating nuclear reactor plants and computer control systems, US energy grid (and plants) computer and control systems, water supply systems, chemical plant computer systems, FAA computer, electrical and control systems, telecommunications lines and control systems, sensitive research sites, damn stock market system, etc. Under DHS with DOJ to enforce.

Michael Kassner
Michael Kassner

There is a lack of qualified people. Because of that, one option being looked at is some form of draft. I gave Estonia as an example.

apotheon
apotheon

When I was assigned to my battalion's ammo squad for a while, I discovered something interesting: that was the one of the squads in the entire battalion most densely packed with intelligence (of the human, and not military, variety). It took smart people who could withstand a lot of stress without screwing up their jobs to do the work of that squad. One little mistake, and 36 pounds of C-4 explosive compound goes missing. We also got treated better than, say, the (non-hazardous materials) transportation squads, or the line infantry squads. Somewhere along the way, they had figured out that it's a bad idea to hand smart people the keys to the kingdom and abuse them. Drafting intelligent people and putting them in a similarly sensitive, high stress position that relies on that intelligence -- drafting them -- would be one of the stupidest things military leadership could do. If "dangerously disgruntled" is a two on a satisfaction scale of one to ten, you'd have to do a lot of work to get them within five points of "dangerously disgruntled" after drafting them, because they'd probably start at a negative ten. In short, the cardinal rule in avoiding shooting yourself in the crotch as military leadership is to not draft highly intelligent people for sensitive positions that could cause a lot of damage. In short, I really really agree with your first sentence, AnsuGisalas. I also agree with the rest, but just felt like sharing.

AnsuGisalas
AnsuGisalas

A draft as is, will just put a lot of disgruntled techs in close contact with sensitive information. We all know that's not a good thing. Giving people a good-as-gold work training and -experience, in exchange for a specific period of voluntary service - is a great idea. If people are there to build a reputation (well, a CV, really) - they're all the less inclined to jeopardize that incentive by performing in ways that reflect poorly upon their competence and trustworthiness. But they still need to be given the tools necessary to cut through the petty bureaucracy that they will encounter.

cartmit
cartmit

Each person has the inalienable property right in their own person: conscription is simply a fancy word for slavery. No matter how noble-sounding the rationalization.

CharlieSpencer
CharlieSpencer

You mean, "Might makes right"? Try telling my natural cat that the natural bluebirds in my yard have inalienable rights to their persons.

apotheon
apotheon

"Natural Law" is a formal term of moral philosophy, used that way in this case (though whether it's used loosely that way would depend on the writer's intent).

apotheon
apotheon

In my experience, it is human nature to use reason only when absolutely required by immediate concerns of survival -- and even then it is usually overruled by other factors in human nature, such as the propensity to piss oneself and get in the way. It takes something of an effort of will to actually apply reason. While reason is definitely a capacity of humans, I do not think its use is particularly a part of human nature. Its abuse on the other hand -- that's another matter.

AnsuGisalas
AnsuGisalas

That'd be why he's in such a huff all of the time... In a way it's similar to what Descartes was trying; a ramp made out of pure reason to connect the existence of humans with the necessity of what human culture was then. It's egocentric, for starters...

santeewelding
santeewelding

"Reason" is another name for human nature, meaning that those "binding rules of moral behavior" are deduced by wringing its own neck. Fat chance.

apotheon
apotheon

I'm not huge on the "natural law" approach, especially when it's the "proprietary right" version of "natural law". My preferred approach is a logical progression from basic principles (i.e., cogito ergo sum) to a founding principle of ethics (i.e., aggression is unethical; the Non-Aggression Principle). Still, the result is the same: conscription is a fancy word for slavery.

AnsuGisalas
AnsuGisalas

How do you apply cogito? I never get beyond the premise... Of course, I have no interest in a proof of the existence of God, and proof that this God is benevolent ;)

apotheon
apotheon

When I hand-wave, I am perfectly willing to admit it.

AnsuGisalas
AnsuGisalas

always getting stuck with the Daemon, leading me to "the world is unfalsifiable". Thanks for the recipe. Hand-waving is what we do, but it takes guts to reveal it.

apotheon
apotheon

I think. I am. Solipsism is unproductive, so . . . You are, and others are. Interaction raises the question of ethics. Is there right and wrong? Well -- if not, it doesn't matter, but if so, we should do something about that. Metaphysical morality is unprovable, but undisprovable. Let each live according to his or her metaphysical morality flavor of choice. Let each live according to his or her . . . choice. The one constant from that: do not interfere with others' choices for themselves. Thus: do not initiate force against others. Voila -- the non-aggression principle. Of course, there's an ungodly (har har) amount of hand-waving in that version. When I write up the version that doesn't include all that handwaving, it'll probably be a $40 book available from Barnes & Noble.

tmcclure
tmcclure

The government will just politicise it and f*ck it all up.

rick_bauer
rick_bauer

Michael: My organization is thoughtfully engaged at the highest levels of our nation's cyber defense infrastructure (DoD, DHS, other agencies) working the issue. It's not as dire as you might think. We have a plan to create a pipeline in our K-12 and 2- and 4-year schools to address this critical need. Please send e-mail to rbauer@comptia.org and we can talk at length about it. thanks, rick bauer

d.miliano
d.miliano

I was hoping that Mr. Obama would be a 21st century president rather that the 19th century types we seem to like to elect. Think what our "smart" weapons would be worth if hacking destroyed or disabled the GPS network. An enemy could plant a virus/worm and suddenly our electrical grid could be compromised. Likewise, our telecommunications network could be interrupted. I was against the draft in the 1970s - especially when I was being pursued by my local selective service board! But you don't have to draft talent to harden our systems. We build tanks, jets, ships, etc., using the talent in our industry. The same could be done for cyber security - we just need to find the will. I hope we don't have to have a cyber 9/11 before "get it." Great topic! Thanks

apotheon
apotheon

A Blackberry doesn't equate to technologically forward thinking. Obama is a Chicago politician -- no more, and no less.

MC68000
MC68000

IMHO cyber-space is just another part of our world and is just as vulnerable to lawlessness as any part. That being said, I know I'm stating the obvious when I point out that there have to be goodguys to keep the badguys in check. What becomes ludicrous then, is the idea that a country, or other entity, can "conscript" the "good" guys. Conscription, by it's very definition, breeds discontent. And aren't the bad guys mostly just malcontents, already unhappy with their lot in life? Sounds akin to the "fox guarding the henhouse" to me. Do we need a protective presence, yes, but people of this level of intellect need to be proven men and women of high moral character and good repute. Otherwise you're just wasting your time. You can't watch everyone all the time which is what you'd have to do in a conscription scenario.

Michael Kassner
Michael Kassner

About malcontented bad guys. It seems that the new version of bad guys are interested in making easy money and the Internet facilitates that. For all intents, it is another business, just not legal.

apotheon
apotheon

Do you want to add a new "badguy" class -- one that, from many perspectives, wouldn't be so bad after all -- that acts in opposition to government because government is engaging in systematic institution of forced labor?

apotheon
apotheon

If nothing else, the "bad guys" are discontented with the rules. Terrorist "bad guys" are malcontents, too.

Michael Kassner
Michael Kassner

I was wondering if the bad guys were discontent or not. The few on the "dark side" I know are well adjusted and drive a better car than I do. Edit: Spelling

jkameleon
jkameleon

Volunteers, that is. They could defend Americans not only from the outside threats, but also from the DHS by spotting the spying that should not occur, and data that should not be gathered. It's the cyber version of the 2nd amendment, if you will. The right of the people to keep and bear information.

elbastevenson
elbastevenson

I put in my 4 during Nam and have over 20 years in IT and heavy Security and real time energy management. If the white house is willing to pay me enough to put food on the table for my family and a roof over their heads. Then sign me up.

seanferd
seanferd

Every little thing is a "cyberattack" to these people. It's just another game of security theater to grow government, the military, and find new ways to be the enemies of human and civil rights, and privacy. It's a scam. The military has already completely failed to do the job of an intelligence, police, and assassination organization. It is mission creep. These things are not the job of the military, whether the military thinks so or not, and whether the CINC/POTUS and Congress think so or not. Sometimes the military has stupid missions thrust upon it, and sometimes it actively seeks out missions to enlarge itself (as if this were needed). When the military can protect its own IT infrastructure and networks, well, then good for the military. If there ever were some sort of "cyberwar", these are the last people who should be dealing with it. OMG! I can't reach Facebook!

apotheon
apotheon

I think you're on to something!

seanferd
seanferd

to real sysadmins and security folks. Failing that, I'd rather see 4chan in charge of it than the gov or mil. Very distributed, even though they are only motivated by lulz and whatever they find annoying or unjust at the moment.

juaniotoo
juaniotoo

I'm beginning to find out that quite a few of so called security experts-hackers, IT experts and so on have been meth users, or "tweakers". I personally know of 3 of them that I've met going through my college courses at my local school. I know how to identify them too by way of their hyper-vigilant actions while on a high. Maybe they're all so high and go so fast they're not worth anything to anybody, and certainly not the US Government.

eryk81
eryk81

I have never liked the idea of someone telling me what I have to do; then again, if I had to, I'd rather not get shot at. However, it would be a great way to train eager computer and information security professionals. That knowledge could then be taken into the private sector where it is needed as well. If it was to start today, it would be a great way to get American's working and keep them working for years to come. It would also help bridge the knowledge and experience gap in the IT field created by all the outsourcing and H1B's.

apotheon
apotheon

There are a lot of good comments in this discussion about the reasons that drafting "cybersecurity" experts would be a really bad idea -- for the effectiveness of conscript personnel, because qualified people are being ignored, because the real problem is training for military personnel, and so on. There's one more reason that I didn't notice anyone else mentioning, though: I volunteered. I fell out of airplanes and carried a rifle for the US Army. I did this of my own free will. I'll be damned if I'll endorse the government turning my voluntary service into support of a system that enslaves people. Screw that.

CharlieSpencer
CharlieSpencer

I won't say it equates to slavery, but neither result in effective workers. All you get are uninterested people who will only do the bare minimum, and will have to be watched like cornered rats in order to get even that little. And who can blame them?

apotheon
apotheon

What differentiates it from slavery?

apotheon
apotheon

Ethics rarely have an impact on legislation largely because legislators rarely have any ethics to speak of. Ethics damned well should have an impact on legislation, though.

CharlieSpencer
CharlieSpencer

Sure, I can agree to that, as long as we acknowledge that ethics rarely have any impact on legislation.

apotheon
apotheon

Do we agree it's also an unethical tool for acquiring "employees"?

CharlieSpencer
CharlieSpencer

Call it what you want; we agree it's a poor tool for successfully acquiring interested, motivated employees.

apotheon
apotheon

You speak of custom, and not of the basic state of forced labor and dictatorial command over the lives of the enslaved. > Slavery rarely has any built-in mechanism for escaping its confines. 1. Rarely is not the same as never. 2. As Neon pointed out, there are historical precedents for slaves "buying" their freedom, as well as for limited periods of enslavement. Would a slaver be any less a slaver if he offered his slaves the option to leave after four years -- with the caveat that he may "stop-loss" them if he felt the need? > Drafted military service is usually for a pre-defined, limited period of time. That's called a "period of indenture" in the slavery business -- except that in the vast majority of cases, indentured servants were at least indentured by signing a contract of their own free will, rather than being scooped up against their will and forced into service. See my above question about offering slaves the option to leave after four years, assuming there's no "stop-loss" in effect. > Draftees get pay and benefits. Slaves don't get either. Food. Housing. Clothes. Slaves were paid; just in what amounted to barter, rather than coin. Some slaves even got an allowance -- particularly house slaves. Would someone be any less a slave if the slaver offered his slaves a monetary allowance, but otherwise treated slavery exactly the same as everyone else? > Some draftees find they enjoy military service and opt to make it a career. Many freed slaves in the United States south elected to remain at the plantations where they were previously enslaved, as employees. Is anyone any less a slave if, later, the former slave (having been freed) chooses to stick around? Ultimately, slavery and conscription are pretty much identical in the ways that matter: 1. You are forced into the relationship, against your will. 2. You have no recourse for release unless and until the managing organization chooses to release you. 3. You get paid, in whatever form, only at the managing organization's discretion. 4. Fleeing service is a punishable offense. 5. You are forced into the relationship, against your will. Really, that's the key point, and deserves repeating. That's what makes it "slavery". All the rest would, in some respects at least, be excusable if not for this one fact. I dealt with items 2, 3, and 4 while I was in the military, and did not consider my rights to be violated by them, because I signed on the dotted line of my own free will. If it was not of my own free will, though, I might well have shot someone to free myself of enslavement. Conscripts are slaves. The nominally temporary state of that condition does not make it any less what it is.

Neon Samurai
Neon Samurai

Slaves tended to get the minimum of housing and food. It's not a life the majority would choose but it is not without it's benefits. From the master's perspective they are an owned resource; there is economic incentive to maintain them. If you starve your slaves and leave them out int he elements they die and you have to buy more. You also have to expend more resources controlling them or suffer a revolt. Depending on the culture, slaves also had a chance of earning their freedom. This seems to be more a Roman thing rather than a recent example. I'd say draftees and slaves are both very much kept people and, depending on culture of enslavement, both draftees and slaves have a promise of freedom which they may or may not ever attain. "Fight for me and I'll feed you, house you, equip you and pay you some money. You'll be freed after your tour unless we still need conscripts." isn't a whole lot different from "Fight for me and I'll feed you, house you, equip you, give you some of the winnings. You may even win your freedom at the Colosseum."

CharlieSpencer
CharlieSpencer

Slavery rarely has any built-in mechanism for escaping its confines. Drafted military service is usually for a pre-defined, limited period of time. Draftees get pay and benefits. Slaves don't get either. Some draftees find they enjoy military service and opt to make it a career. I'm sure there must have been a few slaves over the centuries who preferred not having to accept any responsibility for themselves, but I'll bet it's a much smaller percentage than those of 'career' draftees. But I'll grant you one similarity: Canada welcomed those fleeing from either.

AnsuGisalas
AnsuGisalas

If the draft is for a homeland defence force ONLY (no international operations, that's for career soldiers who signed up), then many people will have a motivation to at least be good enough to not get killed within a day when the ........ come. The people who will not take the draft have to do civilian service for that time, which is not a big deal, and some even get paid for what they do in that time - even though they shouldn't theoretically. It's not the draconian system of the past.

apotheon
apotheon

You appear to have the professional political facility for using the truth to peddle the most heinous dishonesties.

AnsuGisalas
AnsuGisalas

"volunteering" means not suffering the punishment... De facto punishment : coming of age, but not enlisting -> lose the privileges of adulthood. Having the punishment occur at the point where those privileges would have been otherwise awarded doesn't mean that they're not taken away, does it?

apotheon
apotheon

As I recall it, there was respect for the fortitude of spirit that drives a man to act in defense of his culture and family in a just war -- thus, the voluntary act of placing oneself in harm's way for a good cause. I don't think that the simple fact of being a target for enemy soldiers against one's will really qualifies one for Lazarus Long's high regard.

AnsuGisalas
AnsuGisalas

We don't really blame them for the war, do we? I don't know if the English are specifically angry with Argentinians anymore, but since I see little sign of that, I'd imagine it's cooled off quite a lot already. With Germany, it's "the other stuff"... And as hard as it is to forgive others (or easy, depending on one's saintliness), it's much much harder to forgive oneself (regardless of saintliness). But yeah, they'll get over themselves eventually. Let's just hope they don't go into denial... again.

JCitizen
JCitizen

but the forgiveness needs to happen some time. My dad was shot at by Germans and he shot back, but he never hated his enemy.

seanferd
seanferd

seem to find that going to War makes a proper man. But perhaps there is something on the gripping hand, or yet more on a couple of tentacles.

JCitizen
JCitizen

to hear how it is done in other countries. My German cousin served, but my other German male relative didn't, I forgot to ask them if it was a lotto or not. (the last I saw of them) He looked embarrassed to admit serving, and I told him he can be proud of serving his country!

AnsuGisalas
AnsuGisalas

Of course... they did have an IQ-test, and they may have decided, based on that, to not give me the opportunity to draw lots. I have no visual handicaps, nor do I have foot trouble, and I told them as much. The draft supervision board informed of their decision, and the only military member started to say "You can of course enlist..." but faltered when I turned my attention to him. Which is not very conducive to recruiting... I have no idea what really happened.

AnsuGisalas
AnsuGisalas

I went in there with the attitude of taking what may come. As it were, they decided that, nah. Apparently the doctors involved in the process didn't want me to go into service, at least I've had no kind of trouble with flat feet or visual acuity before or after that... ;)

santeewelding
santeewelding

You are back. I am less interested in how you cast all about you, than how you cast your own self. That way, it's harder to refudiate.

AnsuGisalas
AnsuGisalas

merely recounting how the system was supposed to work. It used to be so that there was a punishment aspect to it, but that's fading. The military has looked in the mirror and realized that they're better off not wasting energy on trying to force reluctant draftees, and that stance has rubbed off on the officials charged with handling the refusees. I must admit that I'm not entirely certain how it works as I haven't been throught the draft refusal process ;) EDIT: I did some research; the government pays an allowance for the duration of the civilian service; In Denmark it's something like 40$ per working day. There's a seperate addition for housing expenses. Getting additional pay fromt the place of service isn't allowed, but as I said, it happens.

apotheon
apotheon

You must be thinking of the voluntary service from the novel Starship Troopers, where a reward of honorable service was political enfranchisement -- which is not the same thing as conscription, universal or otherwise, in any way. It's voluntary; it just comes with a reward of sorts.

apotheon
apotheon

Why shouldn't people get paid for their work? Does the fact they're being forced to do it against their wills somehow make them less deserving of some small compensation for their time?

bboyd
bboyd

I admire the Swiss and Israeli programs for the even hand they use for conscription. I'm not sure the negative view of the draft is warranted. I'll give that it is less effective but when used at real need historic precedent shows benefit to the nation. Of course a political police action like the Vietnam war or the Russians war in Afghanistan are not real need. Neither in my mind is the current internet "Threat".

AnsuGisalas
AnsuGisalas

Finland has a universal military service requirement (for males, females of the species may serve, but don't have to). Denmark, having a population as big as Finland's, but an area to be defended much much smaller, has a draft. Lottery and all. But because it's coupled with the option to joing emergency services or do other civilian duties, it doesn't feel very terrible. I had a classmate who wasn't very bright. He inadvertently forgot to show up for draft. Then he panicked and [i]went underground[/i]... authorities meanwhile were going "ho-hum". Silly kid. When he finally broke down and [i]turned himself in[/i] they were going "WTF? What the hell do we care? Go draw a number - we're busy deciding out the grounds on which to disqualify your ass!"

CharlieSpencer
CharlieSpencer

A draft is inherently unfair. It's a lottery; if your number comes up, you're screwed; if it doesn't, you win. I have no objections to a mandatory period of service required of ALL individuals, as some countries mandate for high school graduates. I have no objections to offering a variety of options, such as military service, Peace Corps (or other international civilian service equivalent), cybersecurity duty, a revival of the old Civilian Conservation Corps or other 'green' service, etc. Indeed, I support such programs and wish the US had one. I think they give citizens a common shared experience we in the US lack, and might help instill a sense of pride and civic responsibility. One cannot help but have an interest when one has participated.

yawningdogge
yawningdogge

Where are you getting slavery from? I think it's wide of the mark to say that conscription and slavery are the same thing.

Spitfire_Sysop
Spitfire_Sysop

Can you describe the difference between court ordered work and slavery? (by court ordered, I mean that you will be jailed for dodging the draft) Forced work? Military labor camps? Arbeit Macht Frei? I understand the argument that this is a matter of national security but are we declaring a state of emergency? Have we declared war?

apotheon
apotheon

If the populace is so opposed to the war that nobody's willing to volunteer, maybe it's a war you shouldn't be fighting.

Editor's Picks