Top Democrat: Bring back the draft

[embiggen]

link

 

 

WASHINGTON (AP) -- 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.

 

New York Democratic Rep. Charles Rangel said Sunday he sees his idea as a way to deter politicians from launching wars. He believes a draft would bolster U.S. troop levels that are currently 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 draft 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 November 7 mid-term 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.

 

He 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 and Graham appeared on "Face the Nation" on CBS.

 

Polls show most Americans oppose a draft

Rangel, the next chairman of the House tax-writing committee, said he worried the military is 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.

 

The Selective Service System, an agency independent of the Defense Department, 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.

 

Copyright 2006 The Associated Press.

 

no, no. NO!

[jimmyjimmy]

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

Well perhaps, as an alternative, those people should move away from that train of thought.

[cryptique]

It's just a political gambit on Rangel's part.

 

That said, despite being a left-wing liberal wack-job, I support the idea of mandatory national service. I truly think the U.S. would be in better shape if every one of us had to dedicate two years to serving our country. Not everyone would end up in the military, but most would. It would just be a fact of life: after high school, you put in your two years' service -- or maybe you defer it for a few years to go to college, but you still have to do it.

[embiggen]

[ponch1028]

I support the ideology but not the reality of it.

 

Let's face it, if Rangel's intention is to bring back the draft in order for political leaders to think twice about getting into military conflicts, his ideology may be commendable, but realistically, political leaders have enough clout and power to still find ways for their children and loved ones to avoid combat duty.

 

In the end, the draft would still target and be biased against poorer people and minorities.

 

It's only been a couple of weeks and the Democrats are still as stupid as ever.

 

The Murtha / Pelosi controversy

Rangel's draft idea

 

Democrats, you have two years to demonstrate you are smarter and more efficient than the Republicans. Otherwise, '08 is not going to be a good year for you. I'm rooting for you. Please make our country a better nation.

 

So far, in terms of your major headlines, you are 0-2.

[deepseacatfish]

It's just a political gambit on Rangel's part.

 

That said, despite being a left-wing liberal wack-job, I support the idea of mandatory national service. I truly think the U.S. would be in better shape if every one of us had to dedicate two years to serving our country. Not everyone would end up in the military, but most would. It would just be a fact of life: after high school, you put in your two years' service -- or maybe you defer it for a few years to go to college, but you still have to do it.

 

Most European countries have mandatory service for both men and women. While plenty of people do serve this by doing military service for a while (usually a year or two years at most), I know that most countries also have the option to do civil service...even sometimes in foreign countries. I was working with habitat for humanity in Colorado and there was a German guy there serving his civil service for a year and a half by helping out impoverished American's (particularly Mexican immigrants) in a homeless shelter.

 

Personally I think it would be a good thing if more American's got more involved in helping out each other. In all we'd probably end up having more National Guards-people for helping out with disaster relief, more people going into the Peace Corps, Americorps, etc. Just my thoughts.

[viatroy]

Im with you on that Tom ... I've long thought that compulsory national service

is a good idea for young adults. Things like Katrina cleanup and rebuilding, renovation

of affordable housing stock, teaching and recreation assistance, etc....the possibilities

are endless.

 

And closing corporate tax loopholes is the means to pay for it.

Come to think of it, that should be the means of paying for everything.

 

 

The draft? Fuck no -- if someone wants to volunteer to go kill

some other mother's son, I guess that's their business. But

to be required to fill that role? No.

[LouieB]

It's just a political gambit on Rangel's part.

Totally and he is making no bones about it either. Frankly a draft isn't such a bad idea ultimately. (Yea I know, I am too old to go anymore, but I am old enough to have been eligable the last time), because maybe we would all stop and think prior to starting anymore bullshit like we are in right now.

 

LouieB

[gogo]

Let's face it, if Rangel's intention is to bring back the draft in order for political leaders to think twice about getting into military conflicts, his ideology may be commendable, but realistically, political leaders have enough clout and power to still find ways for their children and loved ones to avoid combat duty.

 

In the end, the draft would still target and be biased against poorer people and minorities.

Jon Carroll, an excellent columnist in the SF Chronicle, wrote something about reinstating the draft about a year ago. His point was not that a draft would cause the political leadership to reconsider going to war, but rather that the threat of a draft would cause the entire middle class to reconsider who they elect into those positions of leadership. The draft likely would still target minorities and the poor, but if there was even a chance that your child would be drafted, wouldn't you think long and hard about the reasons that your chosen candidates have put forward to support the current war? Would those reasons be good enough for your child (possibly) to be sent away to fight and die for?

[LouieB]

Actually Rangel has been talking about this for at least a year, maybe more.

 

LouieB

[John Smith]

It's only been a couple of weeks and the Democrats are still as stupid as ever.

 

The Murtha / Pelosi controversy

Rangel's draft idea

 

Democrats, you have two years to demonstrate you are smarter and more efficient than the Republicans. Otherwise, '08 is not going to be a good year for you. I'm rooting for you. Please make our country a better nation.

 

So far, in terms of your major headlines, you are 0-2.

 

Really? 0 - 2, I find that interesting. 1) the Rangel Draft idea has been floating around since ssometime in 2003. It comes and goes fromt he news. His point about it has beeen discussed here nicely.

2) way back in 1994 when the republicans took over there were few, if any negative headlines when nnew speaker Gingrich's hannd picked Majority leader lost to Tom DeLay. Actually the headlines made little mention of the loss to Gingrich. But today the so called "liberal Media" is reporting this as a major loss for Pelosi and signs of infighting wiith the dems. Very interesting.

[mountain bed]

He was talkin' 'bout the Army

While he passed his pipe around

An American deserter

Who found peace on Swedish ground

He had joined to seek adventure

And to prove himself a man

But they tried to crush his spirit

'Till his conscience ruined their plan

 

And we thought of those who suffer

For the sake of honesty

All those who refuse to follow

Traitors to humanity

 

Here's to all the Draft Resisters

Who will fight for sanity

When they march them off to prison

In this Land of Liberty

 

Heed the threat,and awesome power

Of the mighty Pentagon

Which is wasting precious billions

On the toys of Washington

 

Shame,disgrace & all dishonor

Wrongly placed upon their heads

Will not rob them of the courage

Which betrays the innocent

 

Here's to all the Draft Resisters

Who will fight for sanity

When they march them off to prison

In this Land of Liberty

[ction]

Actually Rangel has been talking about this for at least a year, maybe more.

 

LouieB

 

He introduced some legislation on this a few years ago. At the time, I remember someone on this very message board pointing out that "the republicans are trying to start up the draft again! OMG!"

[embiggen]

He introduced some legislation on this a few years ago. At the time, I remember someone on this very message board pointing out that "the republicans are trying to start up the draft again! OMG!"

 

thanks for the comment gary.

[ponch1028]

Really? 0 - 2, I find that interesting. 1) the Rangel Draft idea has been floating around since ssometime in 2003. It comes and goes fromt he news. His point about it has beeen discussed here nicely.

2) way back in 1994 when the republicans took over there were few, if any negative headlines when nnew speaker Gingrich's hannd picked Majority leader lost to Tom DeLay. Actually the headlines made little mention of the loss to Gingrich. But today the so called "liberal Media" is reporting this as a major loss for Pelosi and signs of infighting wiith the dems. Very interesting.

 

1. Concerning Rangel's draft idea, I remember it coming up in the news before, but is that soundbyte really one of the first headlines you want coming out of the newly elected democratic majority? Is this really the solution that the Democrats are bringing to the table? Is this why we voted them in and voted the Republicans out? For an idea that has been around and around before and is never going to be passed? Some say Rangel is just making a point ... well, stop wasting time making points. We elected the Democrats into the majority. The point has been made for you. We want you to come up with realistic and tangible solutions, resolutions, and strategies. Get to work, you lazy politicans (that goes for all of them).

 

2. Concerning Murtha and Pelosi, I don't view the vote between Murtha/Pelosi and Hoyer to be signs of infighting, but rather Pelosi's endorsement of Murtha in the first place to be a horrible strategic error on the part of Pelosi. Murtha, though not indicted, is not good for the Democratic party and not good for America. This guy is corrupt, make no mistake. After all this campaigning against the Republican corruption, her first move is to endorse Murtha? Pelosi is no doubt an intelligent and capable leader, but her choice was one of the dumbest things. Am I really suppose to trust their campaign promises of truth and honest leadership? And maybe I'm wrong, but Pelosi comes across to me as someone who holds a grudge and is always right. She's talk about promoting people who have been loyal to her -- isn't that how Bush and the Republicans screwed up this nation in the first place - choosing loyalty over credibility and credentials? Is Pelosi going to only endorse and push for people who have unwavered in their support for her? I hope not, but a part of me is skeptical; a part of me can't give her that much credit.

 

Maybe I'm putting too much faith and investment into the new leadership, but I actually bought a lot of what the Democrats campaigned on, and I really believe that the one unifying, common denominator amongst the majority of Americans is that our Government and the leadership has not been what it suppose to be and could be these last several years. Are the Democrats going to deliver and restore, or are they only more liberal and progressive versions of the Republican machine.

 

I stand by my original assessment; in terms of headlines, ideas, and unifying the country, the Democrats are 0-2.

[bobbob1313]

Some guy on another message board I frequent used this to go on a rant about how all of the democrats want to bring the draft back, and how they hate immigrants.

[ikol]

Since the Iraq/Vietnam comparison doesn't work, let's reinstate the draft and make it work!

[bjorn_skurj]

Never happen. The military will tell you they don't want people who don't want to be there.

[owl]

Since the Iraq/Vietnam comparison doesn't work, let's reinstate the draft and make it work!

 

D'oh!

 

Bush Compares Iraq To Vietnam

 

There are some similarities with Vietnam, such as our spending, the duration, and their civil war. Spending is obvious. And in the civil war sense, like Vietnam, the U.S. administration sees it as a proxy fight in the war on terrorism, but Iraqis see it as a civil war where the stakes are much higher.

 

The chief difference is Iraq's far fewer soldier fatalities, but I don't see any sign of letting up, anyway, unfortunately. Casualties in general are pretty high, though- something we hear little about.

 

I'm not opposed to a draft (though I agree with Bjorn), and I wouldn't dodge it if there was one. Mandatory military service might do our complacent, fat, lazy, all-bark-no-bite, violence-glorifying populace some good, I guess, but not in the sense that it might have 60 years ago. Today's military (soldiers themselves excluded) is nothing but a dishonorable business, not something we Americans should be proud of.

[Guest Jules]

He introduced some legislation on this a few years ago. At the time, I remember someone on this very message board pointing out that "the republicans are trying to start up the draft again! OMG!"

 

2 years ago it went to a vote in the House. 402-2 against.

[anodyne]

a draft in a declared war -- maybe. a draft in a police action ordered by the executive? too dangerous.

[Sweet Papa Crimbo]

Never happen. The military will tell you they don't want people who don't want to be there.

 

 

Exactamundo.

 

While the thought of a conscript army serving Jeffersonian ideals (forget Rangel's bullshit grandstanding) may be attractive, anybody who was in the military as a profession in the 60's and 70's will tell you that the unmotivated, spoiled children of America are a nightmare for the military. The depression era generation was of a different stripe than the boomers and the following generations. Plus, the goals are very different in this fractured world then they were in the 40's.

 

Forget this abortion in Iraq and the desire to 'de-militarize the body politic' for a minute. There's no good way to put lipstick on this pig and call it Carmen Electra...the war or Rangel's grandstanding. The drug use and discipline problems of the 60's and 70's would be disastrous for American security these days. We leave Iraq tomorrow and there will still be an animus for America and Americans world wide. There was before Iraq and there will be 50 years from now. I was somebody who wants to serve their country putting their life on the line to protect us, not a kid who would rather be sitting around playing PS3.

 

This 'proposal' from Rangel could be disastrous in this contentious political climate. The impressions left by grandstanding and goofy politicians aren't always perceived in the intended manner by the body politic. It's easier to chew on the sound bites than look at the deeper issues.

[SlowBurn68]

Never happen. The military will tell you they don't want people who don't want to be there.

 

Exactly - That was the first lesson learned from Vietnam.

[OOO]

Exactly - That was the first lesson learned from Vietnam.

 

After "Never fight a land war in Asia" and "Never go in with a sicilian when death is on the line."

[Beltmann]

"Never go in with a sicilian when death is on the line."

I can't tell you how many times that advice has kept me out of harm's way.