| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Politix |
| Rangel Will Seek to Reinstate Draft |
| 2006-11-19 |
| Americans would have to sign up for a new military draft after turning 18 if the incoming chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee has his way. Rep. Charles Rangel, D-N.Y., said Sunday he sees his idea as a way to deter politicians from launching wars and to bolster U.S. troop levels insufficient to cover potential future action in Iran, North Korea and Iraq. "There's no question in my mind that this president and this administration would never have invaded Iraq, especially on the flimsy evidence that was presented to the Congress, if indeed we had a draft and members of Congress and the administration thought that their kids from their communities would be placed in harm's way," Rangel said. Rangel, a veteran of the Korean War who has unsuccessfully sponsored legislation on conscription in the past, said he will propose a measure early next year. In 2003, he proposed a measure covering people age 18 to 26. This year, he offered a plan to mandate military service for men and women between age 18 and 42; it went nowhere in the Republican-led Congress. Democrats will control the House and Senate come January because of their victories in the Nov. 7 election. At a time when some lawmakers are urging the military to send more troops to Iraq, "I don't see how anyone can support the war and not support the draft," said Rangel, who also proposed a draft in January 2003, before the U.S. invasion of Iraq. Sen. Lindsey Graham, a South Carolina Republican who is a colonel in the U.S. Air Force Standby Reserve, said he agreed that the U.S. does not have enough people in the military. "I think we can do this with an all-voluntary service, all-voluntary Army, Air Force, Marine Corps and Navy. And if we can't, then we'll look for some other option," said Graham, who is assigned as a reserve judge to the Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals. Rangel, the next chairman of the House tax-writing committee, said he worried the military was being strained by its overseas commitments. "If we're going to challenge Iran and challenge North Korea and then, as some people have asked, to send more troops to Iraq, we can't do that without a draft," Rangel said. He said having a draft would not necessarily mean everyone called to duty would have to serve. Instead, "young people (would) commit themselves to a couple of years in service to this great republic, whether it's our seaports, our airports, in schools, in hospitals," with a promise of educational benefits at the end of service. Graham said he believes the all-voluntary military "represents the country pretty well in terms of ethnic makeup, economic background." Repeated polls have shown that about seven in 10 Americans oppose reinstatement of the draft and officials say they do not expect to restart conscription. Outgoing Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld told Congress in June 2005 that "there isn't a chance in the world that the draft will be brought back." Yet the prospect of the long global fight against terrorism and the continuing U.S. commitment to stabilizing Iraq have kept the idea in the public's mind. The military drafted conscripts during the Civil War, both world wars and between 1948 and 1973. An agency independent of the Defense Department, the Selective Service System trains, keeps an updated registry of men age 18-25 _ now about 16 million _ from which to supply untrained draftees that would supplement the professional all-volunteer armed forces. Rangel and Graham appeared on "Face the Nation" on CBS. |
| Posted by:.com |
| #29 I served voluntarily - and I am absolutely against a draft in any shape or form. So what if "your" version of the draft doesn't force military service but give a choice between military and social service. In either case it's basically slavery. I believe Heinlein said something like "A country that must depend on a draft is unworthy of fighting for." Patriotic volunteers are the backbone of the army of a democracy - and if they are not the country is not worth fighting for or the war being fought is probably being fought for the wrong reasons. With respect to "social service" as an alternative to military service: If you won't PAY or tax and PAY enough to get your damned social services done and you have to enslave the youth of the nation to force them into social service - then you should probably revisit your thinking about the positive value of social service. |
| Posted by: Leigh 2006-11-19 23:28 |
| #28 ZF: It made sense to have a draft in Vietnam because the Vietnamese were a major enemy. For anyone who doubts the Vietnamese were a major enemy, we lost 52,918 men fighting the Japanese during WWII, and something like 58,000 dead fighting the Vietnamese Communists. |
| Posted by: Zhang Fei 2006-11-19 22:58 |
| #27 The continued SECURITY, SURVIVABILITY, + EXISTENCE of the American nation is beyond GOP-DEM, LEFT vs RIGHT, FEDERALIST vs CENTRALIST, etal. As argued before in the mid-late 1990's, RUSSIA-CHINA > "ASSASSIN'S MACE" = Iff IMMEDIATE NUCLEARIZED ESCALATION fails to either protect the STATUS QUO, where Amer's enemies lose little to nothing of what they already have or control; or else fails to destabilize America to the advantage of Amer's enemies, "BOLT-FROM-THE-BLUE" = ATTACK OF ANNIHILATION agz America remains a viable option. FREEDOM > means that people whom wish to selfishly or maliciously exploit any kind of situation for there own agenda will be wid us, "LIKE BAD WEATHER=STDS" as some bloggers have put it. WHAT MATTERS IS NOT SOMUCH THE SIZE OF OUR ARMY BUT THAT OUR ARMIES BE USED FOR VICTORY + NATION'S SAFETY, WHAT MATTERS IS THE KIND OF SOCIETY + GOVT WE HAVE AFTER VICTORY IS WON, i.e. what the Waffle-happy Lefties + Commies-Socialists-Governmentists give back. THAT GIVES THEM WHATEVER FREEDOMS + WEALTH THEIR OWN PERSONAL IDEO DOES NOT OR CAN NOT BY VIRTUE OF ITS OWN MERITS. IMO Mainstream America wants its Armies to achieve VICTORY, NOT "PC FOREVER" OR "SOCIALISM, ETAL. [-iSMS] WITHOUT THE CONSENT OR KNOWLEDGE OF THE PEOPLE". Both Russia-China had already stated that btwn Year 2014 - 2020 [2018], NUCLEAR WAR IS NOT ONLY POSSIBLE BUT DESIRED AGZ AMERICA. IOW, iff America does NOT adopt OWG + Failed and Failing Socialism, America will be destroyed - RADICAL ISLAM > SUBSTITUTE RADICAL ISLAM + GLOBAL MUSLIM/ISLAMIST STATE FOR SECULAR SOCIALISM > DA THREAT IS THE SAME. 9-11 WTC Towers Collapse > It doesn't matter what ANY AMERICAN BELIEVES, HE = SHE = IT = ANY = ALL = EVERY = TINY TIM BUTTERFLIES + PET DOGS/TURTLES + PET ROCKS > JUST AS DEAD OR DESTROYED IN THE END. The only issue is whom/which gets to die first. Just a few days ago that CHINA > iff "the Enemy" cannot be CRIPPLED FROM AFAR SO THAT DOMINANCE + CONTROL BE EXERTED UPON SAME, TRADITIONAL "OCCUPATION OF THE ENEMY'S HEARTLAND/TERRITORY" IS DESIRED. Why can Amer's enemies have contingency, BUT NOT America??? TOO MUCH vs TOO LITTLE > TOO LITTLE presumes one's enemy(s) think + behave like you do, or act/decide in the the ways you want them to. AT LAST CHECK, I DON'T RECALL RUSSIA, CHINA, IRAN, + NORKORS, ETC BEING CONTROLLED OR GOVERNED FROM WASHINGTON, DO YOU??? Amers need to do what is necessary to protect our country + way of life - its gonna be too late come 2018 or 2020, and ICBMS start raining on AMerica but America has neither NO GMD, nor sufficient domestic milfor-levels to offset the Motherly Commie Airborne ASSASSIN'S MACE + WAR/BATTLE/LOCAL ZONE > TAKE-AND-HOLD backed up by [MULTI-LEVEL] IMMEDIATE NUCLEAR ESCALATION, TACTICAL thru STRATEGIC thru GEOPOL, with POLITICAL-DIPLOM VICTORY emphasized over MILITARY. IOW, USA's SURRENDERS LEST ITS ENEMIES DESTROY THE USA ALONG WID THEMSELVES. |
| Posted by: JosephMendiola 2006-11-19 22:52 |
| #26 TW: Although to be clear, I do think doing some sort of mandatory service would be a good thing all around -- allow those who want to help a period in the midst of all the self-centered things like getting a career started a time to do so, and confronting all the cause junkies with unavoidable reality, always a good thing. I would have loved the chance to do something like that when I was young and even sillier than I am now. Compulsory military service is a major drain on the economy because it involves having a major segment of the population engaged in non-productive activities*. If Israel weren't a tiny country surrounded by hostiles, its economy would be much better served with an all-volunteer military. Apart from the economic issue, there's also the political issue that no citizen should be compelled to work for the state except in times of dire national need. Israel's geopolitical situation, coupled with its tiny size and small population, is one of perpetual dire national need. Uncle Sam's is not. * And I mean non-productive in the literal sense - military people don't add anything to the economy. |
| Posted by: Zhang Fei 2006-11-19 22:51 |
| #25 Although to be clear, I do think doing some sort of mandatory service would be a good thing all around -- allow those who want to help a period in the midst of all the self-centered things like getting a career started a time to do so, and confronting all the cause junkies with unavoidable reality, always a good thing. I would have loved the chance to do something like that when I was young and even sillier than I am now. |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2006-11-19 21:58 |
| #24 I think a draft is a stupid idea in cases where we're not fighting a major enemy. It made sense to have a draft in Vietnam because the Vietnamese were a major enemy. We lost 100,000 dead in Korea and Vietnam. A draft made sense then. We're not anywhere near those numbers in the War on Terror. A draft is something you only use in the event of a manpower crisis. We don't have a manpower crisis today. We have a funding crisis. We're fighting significant military campaigns on a peacetime budget. During the Vietnam War, we had a high single digit (%) defense budget. With another $100b in the defense budget, we could easily add the divisions we need to carry out Iraq-style military occupations. |
| Posted by: Zhang Fei 2006-11-19 21:54 |
| #23 Pretty please, let him do it. I'd love the smell of smoked Rangell (and dhimicrats in his vicinity) in the morning after. |
| Posted by: twobyfour 2006-11-19 21:52 |
| #22 The business world won't stand for it, and they are big, big political donors. With unemployment hovering slightly above 4%, which is apparently as close to total employment as the US gets, there just aren't any surplus bodies to take. As has been discussed here, Germany has that kind of universal conscription (of young men, anyway), with the choice of armed service or community service, mostly to keep the unemployment numbers a bit lower. Around here in the outer suburbs of the Midwest, almost every single high school kid old enough to legally hold a paying job is doing so, and the job notices on the board in front of the guidence office are still tacked three deep. |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2006-11-19 21:49 |
| #21 I agree w/Remoteman on the universal service. 2 yrs of mil, or 3C's type stuff or whatever. Yes, Rangel is an idiot. I hope he puts his bill forth and watch him drag the dems through even more embarrassment like the the Pelosi/Murtha crap this last week. |
| Posted by: Broadhead6 2006-11-19 21:09 |
| #20 Rangel has to be an idiot to think that this will play well for the Democrats : even hearings on the draft will turn into a nightmare for them. None of the JCS want a draft, none of the field commanders want a draft, and if you want the youth vote to suddenly become energized, try to force a draft down the throats of 18-21 year olds. Less than 25% of the 18-21 bracket who bother to register ever vote, push the draft and see what happens to those numbers. Are we sure that Rangel is not on the payroll of Rove, because this certainly sounds like a way to insure Republican control of the House, Senate, and White House for the next 12 years. |
| Posted by: Shieldwolf 2006-11-19 20:38 |
| #19 I am not for the draft but I am for some sort of universal service as part of the price of citizenship in this great country. 2 years after high school. Military would be only one option. Our college professors would be rapidly marginilized when 20 year olds who had actually been doing something for a couple of years came into their midst. |
| Posted by: Remoteman 2006-11-19 20:33 |
| #18 The Democrats want soldiers to be human shields between the Government and America's enemies. |
| Posted by: Grunter 2006-11-19 19:52 |
| #17 That is what has to be hammered home draft = slavery not draft = patriot. The Dems will make sure their and all the elites kids get deferments service waved. The draft needs to remain unpopular. |
| Posted by: Sock Puppet of Doom 2006-11-19 19:30 |
| #16 The late great economist Milton Friendman once had a discussion with Major General William (?) Westmoreland regarding the draft. Friendman was arguing for a volounteer force. (paraphrased from memory) Westmoreland asked "So, you want me to lead a company of mercenaries into battle?" To which Friedman replied, "That would be preferable to leading a company of slaves would it not?" |
| Posted by: FOTSGreg 2006-11-19 18:20 |
| #15 Why isn't JosephMendiola all over this? I told him once before he would have to wait til Hillary takes over before we get a draft. My theory is that Democrats are more likely to reinstitute the draft because they tend to be more totalitarian in nature and what is more totalitarian than the draft? What better way to have the government interfere in your life than to get conscripted? We are more likely to end up with a big, out of control war with the Democrats because they will appease Ahmadiwhackjob until he's out of control. But do they ever stop to think that by encouraging our enemies by calling for early withdrawal and appeasing the whackjob that they are actually prolonging the war and making it more likely that some time down the road we'll really need the draft? Do you really think they give a rat's ass as long as they can use Iraq as a club to beat Republicans? BTW I don't think we need a grand army to deal with Iran. Just bomb the f*ck out of them and let the survivors seethe. Do try to occupy it. Do NOT try to rebuild it. If anything, send in enough guys for long enough to secure the nuke sites but then get 'em outta there. Then blockade the bastards until they starve. |
| Posted by: Elmereter Hupash6222 2006-11-19 17:49 |
| #14 I wonder how that Gang of 14 is going to blow back in 2008. Up for re-election in 2008 * Susan Collins, Maine (May make it; Olympia Snowe did, but she was the only one) --> Lindsey Graham, South Carolina * John Warner, Virginia (Likely retirement) Gone in 2006 * Mike DeWine, Ohio * Lincoln Chafee, Rhode Island |
| Posted by: eLarson 2006-11-19 17:33 |
| #13 Idiot Linseed Graham did not read the memo. McCain is going hawkish to solidify himself with the trunk base. Instead, Linseed is playing footsie with a guy who may have spent too much time in Manchuria. |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2006-11-19 16:56 |
| #12 *BINGO* KBK has it! |
| Posted by: Frank G 2006-11-19 16:50 |
| #11 I think it's a cynical plan: by re-instituting the draft, the Dems can drive a wedge between the youth of the country and the military and Republicans. They are trying hard to get us back to the civil discourse we had at the time of the Viet Nam war. |
| Posted by: KBK 2006-11-19 16:48 |
| #10 LOL - If Pelosi were smart (not a given) they won't... |
| Posted by: Frank G 2006-11-19 16:33 |
| #9 Oh please, please, please bring it to a vote. Please? I'm mean really, I'm seriously asking Lord, Please........? And hearing? Can we have hearings too? Please, please, please? Okay, Sunday Skool in July, I'm so there. |
| Posted by: Shipman 2006-11-19 16:09 |
| #8 We need to reinstate a draft so we won't be able to muster the political support for using the military. |
| Posted by: Perfesser 2006-11-19 16:04 |
| #7 BPiB - the draft isn't youth slavery - more like indentured servitude. And certainly not like chattel slavery - back in the 1600-1700's slaveowners wouldn't risk valuable assets like slaves on hazardous tasks (like blowing up log jams) - they'd have short-time indentured servants do it. |
| Posted by: Glenmore 2006-11-19 16:03 |
| #6 Nuts |
| Posted by: Sock Puppet of Doom 2006-11-19 16:03 |
| #5 I agree. New York has been attacked 2 times now. The only solution is to draft 10% of New York's total population (like the Good War) and send them to fight the Saudis. |
| Posted by: ed 2006-11-19 15:58 |
| #4 America would be synonymous with youth slavery If I would help ANY American escape and fight using any means for freedom against any state that tried this. The welfare state is the evil twin of the draft state. Both must be destroyed. |
| Posted by: Bright Pebbles in Blairistan 2006-11-19 15:49 |
| #3 The last time Charlie's draft bill came up for a vote, even he voted against it. A clam has more backbone. Given that the military guys are against a draft, it's amusing that the Party of Peace and Love wants to force people to join the army. On the other hand, if there was a draft, we could go back to resisting it just like in the '60s. Fight the Power, man! |
| Posted by: SteveS 2006-11-19 15:13 |
| #2 Chollie Rangel is a piece of shit. He keeps spouting this racist crap that the military is built on an overwhelming use of minorities and poor. Fact is, the logistics chain does have a representative quantity, but the point of the spear is primarily middle-class whites, who had other opportunities and joined out of sense of duty and patriotism. That's why he doesn't understand it. He was in Korea IIRC, but likely not a volunteer, hmmm? Another tax-and-spend pimp in a three piece suit. Here's hoping his health isn't great |
| Posted by: Frank G 2006-11-19 14:33 |
| #1 I'd go along with him if it was 'universal service', not a draft lottery, and if they would de-wussify the training again (fat chance). The yoots of this country could sure use a little discipline and PT. On the other hand, there's a bunch of 'em I don't want learning real marksmanship - better they learn to make little rocks out of big ones. |
| Posted by: Glenmore 2006-11-19 14:25 |