You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Submit your comments on this article
Home Front: Politix
Key Dhimmicrats oppose renewing military draft
2006-11-21
Charlie's plan isn't going over so well.
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Leading Democrats who soon will control the legislative agenda in the U.S. Congress rejected on Monday a colleague's call for reinstatement of the U.S. military draft. "I don't think we need it," Sen. Carl Levin of Michigan told reporters. He is set to chair the Senate Armed Services Committee when Democrats take over both houses of Congress from Republicans in January.

Congressional Republicans also have not expressed support. Rep. Duncan Hunter, the outgoing chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, said the military has been meeting its recruitment goals. "You have a draft and you have a lot of people who don't want to serve ... to force them to come in and take the place of volunteers doesn't make a lot of sense."

The top two Democrats in the U.S. House of Representatives also voiced their opposition to a plan being pushed by Rep. Charles Rangel, a New York Democrat, for drafting soldiers into the army for the first time since 1973. "We did not include that" in legislative plans for early next year, said Democratic Rep. Steny Hoyer of Maryland, who will be House majority leader when the new Congress convenes in January.
"I just take this job and now I have to deal with this."
Incoming House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California noted her opposition to the draft in remarks to reporters.
Posted by:Steve White

#40  Draftees are a solution looking for a problem.

They take more effort to train and discipline. Overall, they are half (if that) as effective as a volunteer.

More boots on the ground? Yes, if all you want is quantity.
Posted by: Pappy   2006-11-21 21:35  

#39  Want more military you got to pay to play. You don't need a draft, you need to pay proffesional wages if you want professionals. Congress always wants to get by on the cheap for military manpower.

Rangle = TRANZI, race pimping, loudmouth, tool.
Posted by: Sock Puppet of Doom   2006-11-21 19:04  

#38  "hehe"
Posted by: .com   2006-11-21 19:00  

#37  Whassamatter, Abu Goatburger?
Posted by: .com   2006-11-21 18:55  

#36  ahhhhh our lil Dubai troll, living like an oil tick, espouses "I'm not entitled" as a life philosophy. Hypocrisy? writ large, a-hole
Posted by: Frank G   2006-11-21 18:22  

#35  
Posted by: Abu_chopchop   2006-11-21 18:09  

#34  Ima with HiAss_Haji man. We must walk the walk and talk the talk. Which means taking their oils and greaseies and fouling their sheeps. Taking our army of coat hangers and going after their ass-fones! Total damn assimatrical war!
Posted by: Shipman   2006-11-21 18:04  

#33  For some reason, that pic of Charlie makes me think of large household appliance sales.
Posted by: SteveS   2006-11-21 18:00  

#32  This is what a public education gets you?
Posted by: Weird Al   2006-11-21 17:57  

#31  
Hibbyjibby, you just keep turning up like a bad penny, don't ya?

We're going to have to face facts, here: you're just not tall enough to go on this ride. Take a hike.
Posted by: Hijobol_Abjub   2006-11-21 17:51  

#30  Fairly simple. Want more divisions?

Pay for them. We had more and paid for more in the 80's, with less population.

the only thing holding the Army back from growing is the lack of funds and committment to do it - and its expensive to procures soldiers, rifles, ammo, traucks, tanks, Strykers, artillery, training, benefits, etc.

Fund it and they will come - but its a decade or more comittment. And riase what you are paying and you'll get more volunterring, especially if the economuy crashes.

No need for a draft.


Posted by: OldSpook   2006-11-21 17:46  

#29  Heinlein probably was a fascist at heart; witness "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress", but there is something to the idea that there ain't no such thing as a free lunch(abbreviated in his book, but originally from Coolidge) If you want the guv'mnt to do things for you, you owe something in return. Not popular in these days of "I'm entitled", but still the basis of group interactions.
Posted by: Weird Al   2006-11-21 17:43  

#28  It's politically easy to cut shit (think: Peace Dividend Orgy), and tough as hell to rebuild. It's all about the votes and the gumption, or lack thereof, IMO - same as it is in warfighting and the ROE.
Posted by: .com   2006-11-21 17:35  

#27  Don't feed the troll, please.

Posted by: FOTSGreg   2006-11-21 17:35  

#26  Loosertarians - rantburgers

Draft all rantburgers - maybe you won't come back

hehe
Posted by: Hibjobol_Abjub   2006-11-21 17:34  

#25  We prefer to leave the civilian population alive? So we should kill them to pacify them? I think Iv'e heard this before. As to a draft being slavery, I think it may be more something you might owe as a part of the social contract that keeps the bad guys away from your door. Again, I don't favor it, but there have been circumstances in the past where it was needed. Not now.

I really didn't mean to start an argument (well, not really), but since a good debate is as good or better as argument...

During WW2, Korea, and Vietnam we seemed to have little problem with killing civilians in wholesale lots - and yes, to a large extent, it did pacify our enemies by killing them. There are few things more peaceful than a dead enemy.

If that's what it's going to take I say "Better them than us."

As to the draft=slavery issue, and I did bring this up the other day in quoting Milton Friedman's comments to Gen. Westmoreland, Weird All, your view is very Heinleinian - not that that's necessarily a bad thing. Universal service, if it is shown to be something that is expected and which earns you something respected should be something admirable. The draft is not IMO because it has been abused and misrepresented too many times in our past. I'd even go along with the idea of "service earns you citizenship, and citizenship gives you the right to vote". Heinlein liked that idea though his opponents called it fascism of the first order (and still do - just ask Verhoeven).

As to whether or not a draft is needed now, I tend to agree with your point, but not your reasoning. We definitely do need a more universal system of getting young people into the military because, again IMNSHO, the wolves are at the door or already inside the house.

Just my $0.02, worth what you paid for it.

Posted by: FOTSGreg   2006-11-21 17:28  

#24  "As for Libertarians, it's more than obvious that they usually play spoiler, rather than offer anything productive." Ouch! Slapdown noted and difficult to argue. I did say "at Heart", if that helps any. I do object a bit to the pseudo-logic part. I just point out that we started this iraq thing with what we had on hand, and it seems like crying in your beer to say later it was somebody else's fault that we didn't have the strength to do it right. After all, if Cain hadn't killed Abel.....
Posted by: Weird Al   2006-11-21 17:28  

#23  Lol. You disingenuously open a discussion that has been held at least 5 times - old Charlie floated this BS long ago - and then simply reject the posts with your contrarian pseudo-logic.

For example, my #15 is relevant. It is about the votes. It is about who's in power in the Big Chair and the Congress - both chambers. If had been a solid (non-RINO) Pubbie Senate to match the House of the last 6 years, then there could've been progress in restoring the military manpower, not just the shiny hardware that ends up being in someone's State or CD to provide jobs and let them preen about bringing home the bacon. Just an example. Manpower and bennies for the people in the Military are always at the bottom of the agenda for Congresscritters.

As for Libertarians, it's more than obvious that they usually play spoiler, rather than offer anything productive. Yes, there are exceptions.
Posted by: .com   2006-11-21 17:17  

#22  We prefer to leave the civilian population alive? So we should kill them to pacify them? I think Iv'e heard this before. As to a draft being slavery, I think it may be more something you might owe as a part of the social contract that keeps the bad guys away from your door. Again, I don't favor it, but there have been circumstances in the past where it was needed. Not now.
Posted by: Weird Al   2006-11-21 17:14  

#21  I don't favor a draft, but I do have to ask why it's automaticly a bad idea.

Because it's slavery.

You call yourself a libertarian and you don't understand that?
Posted by: Rob Crawford   2006-11-21 17:09  

#20  we don't have the strength to both put them down and keep them down.

BS. We have the strength. We just won't use it, preferring to leave the cities intact and the civilian population alive.
Posted by: Rob Crawford   2006-11-21 17:08  

#19  Is that an supposed to be an insult or a compliment .com? And I must have slept through the last hundred years or so, SR-71. Libertarians = Loosertarians? I thought it was more people who want to mind their own business. Troll under your own bridge, my friend. At least I didn't think a bunch of mulslim fanatics were going to greet us with open arms, just because they were in Iraq. Actually, they did at first, until the whole thing went south. Really tough to win a guerrilla (insurgent) war when you don't control the borders, or the people on the other side of the border.
Posted by: Weird Al   2006-11-21 17:07  

#18  Just to be pushy, I think most Libertarians are merely Contrarians with an updated label.
Posted by: .com   2006-11-21 16:57  

#17  Libertarians = Loosertarians. I smell troll.

My last word.
Posted by: SR-71   2006-11-21 16:56  

#16  Being a libertarian at heart, I think the whole thing was a balls-up from the word go. However, .com, if the congress in the 90's couldn't prevent the cuts, I don't think the congress now will have any more effect. Just to be pushy, how many divisions did the current administration add in it's first 70 months in power?
Posted by: Weird Al   2006-11-21 16:44  

#15  Actually, Weird Al, I believe it does matter - the Camelot II Crowd is (partially) back in power. The total smackdown of the Moonbattery they indulged seems to me to be a survival thingy that needs public exposure - since we live by the vote and may die by it, too.

Just my take.
Posted by: .com   2006-11-21 16:36  

#14  Remember that "Peace Dividend" thingy? What was that, about a million years ago?
Posted by: tu3031   2006-11-21 16:20  

#13  No, I actually don't care who cut us down to 10 divisions, because it happened and is done with. Was it a mistake and a stupid thing to do? Oh, yes. It doesn't change the reality of what we have to deal with. Could congress have stood up ten years ago and said, we won't let you do this? I don't know. The fact remains that we are in a muslim country where a goodly number of people (5k, 50k 500k, but enough to make trouble) really don't like us, and we don't have the strength to both put them down and keep them down.
Posted by: Weird Al   2006-11-21 15:58  

#12  Drat! Sorry, mods. The server timed out so duplicate messages were generated.

My apologies.

Posted by: FOTSGreg   2006-11-21 15:41  

#11  Weird Al,

We have 10 active divisions. Ten years ago we had 20 (I con't really care whose fault that is).

You don't care or you simply don't want to hear?

By the end of Ronald Reagan's second term in office the US had close to 600 combat ships afloat. By the start of GW Bush's first term in office the US number of combat ships afloat was just short of 200.

Clinton cut 2 full divisions out of the Army, close to 50 thousand active duty troops, and forced the shut down of God knows how many bases in this country and abroad.

Oh, and Charlie, just in case you haven;t figured it out yet - you don't have to "gin up" anything. We're already in a war! You just can't seem to get a handle on the fact that there's no real opposing force in the field numbering in the tens of thousands and overrunning American positions like there was in Korea.

Maybe that's part of Charlie's problem - he can't see we're at war because he can't recognize the forces opposing this country.

I guess, to folks like Rangel, they all look alike.

Posted by: FOTSGreg   2006-11-21 15:40  

#10  Weird Al,

We have 10 active divisions. Ten years ago we had 20 (I con't really care whose fault that is).

You don't care or you simply don't want to hear?

By the end of Ronald Reagan's second term in office the US had close to 600 combat ships afloat. By the start of GW Bush's first term in office the US number of combat ships afloat was just short of 200.

Clinton cut 2 full divisions out of the Army, close to 50 thousand active duty troops, and forced the shut down of God knows how many bases in this country and abroad.

Oh, and Charlie, just in case you haven;t figured it out yet - you don't have to "gin up" anything. We're already in a war! You just can't seem to get a handle on the fact that there's no real opposing force in the field numbering in the tens of thousands and overrunning American positions like there was in Korea.

Maybe that's part of Charlie's problem - he can't see we're at war because he can't recognize the forces opposing this country.

I guess, to folks like Rangel, they all look alike.

Posted by: FOTSGreg   2006-11-21 15:39  

#9  The bottom line is always money. The basic problem is that if you have a draft, you don't have to pay anybody very well, but then you lose the high level people we have now, who won't enlist for really low pay levels. On the other hand, one of the hard lessons people seem to have to relearn from time to time is that there is a difference between taking ground and holding ground, particularly if your enemy declines to meet you in the open field. I don't have the answer, except that 10 divisions isn't enough to hold the amount of hostile territory they're being asked to cover.
Posted by: Weird Al   2006-11-21 15:37  

#8  Weird, there are other ways to address the numbers issue than going to a draft. The bottom line is money. We are not offering enough for the extra number of recruits we need to attract and keep them. All those divisions that used to be there were cut by Clinton (and the military). I agree wholeheartedly that we need a larger military, but the draft is the last resort to get there.
Posted by: remoteman   2006-11-21 15:26  

#7  I don't favor a draft, but I do have to ask why it's automaticly a bad idea. McCain calls for an increase of troop levels by 50 -60k, but we don't have that many available. Where do they come from? If we wind up in another land war(I don't know where either) where do the men come from? We call up 250k reservists. Then what? We have 10 active divisions. Ten years ago we had 20 (I con't really care whose fault that is). They are the best trained strike force in the hisotry of combat, but not initially trained for what they're now doing. Sometime numbers really do make a difference. So is it a bad idea because of the person who offered it, or just a bad idea? If so, why?
Posted by: Weird Al   2006-11-21 14:56  

#6  Sorry, Charlie...
Posted by: mojo   2006-11-21 13:27  

#5  I just heard this asshole's voice saying that the people should only agree to fight a war that's been ginned up to be a serious threat to America.
Ginned up ? By who the macaca media ?
As in Kosovo is a great war, a good war, a just war. Whereas, Iraq is Bush's war, a bad war.
Charlie, you asshole, ginning up is just words. The bullshit macaca media can turn on the words, or turn them off. There is no reality behind the macaca. Ginning up is for getting drunk, you fartworth, not reason to wage war.

The biggest gap within the USA is between democrats and intelligence. And, it's widening.
Posted by: wxjames   2006-11-21 13:02  

#4  Anyther leftist wild eyed idea that collapses under the weight of reason.
The country is not in the mood for this bullshit.
Posted by: wxjames   2006-11-21 11:17  

#3  Normally I'd agree with you Nimble. But the evidence is to the contrary. Despite the never ending negative news bombardment coming out of Iraq, and the left's obsession with tearing down whatever esprit de corps the military has, enlistments, and even re-enlistments, are at near historic highs, with no end in sight. The military's way of saying 'f*ck you' to the left and the MSM.
Posted by: mcsegeek1   2006-11-21 09:54  

#2  It will be interesting to see what happens to enlistment, and more importantly, re-enlistment rates. I have a feeling Chollie will be saying "I told you so" within two years.
Posted by: Nimble Spemble   2006-11-21 07:29  

#1  Some enterprising reporter should ask Charlie if he is going to vote for his bill this time if it comes up for a vote again.
Posted by: SteveS   2006-11-21 01:39  

00:00