Search This Blog

Monday, November 20, 2006

Election fallout 1.0 - Democrats to bring back military draft

One of the consequences of a Democratic victory, as I had warned one and all, is heading our way already.

WASHINGTON -- 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.


The all-volunteer military has been meeting and exceeding recruiting goals, so the need for a draft is not because of numbers.

The all-volunteer military has requirements concerning both intellectual and physical capabilities. Right now the bureacracy required to sift out the "wheat from the chaff", so to speak, is not massive since it is merely a matter of testing those who wish to join. The sifting of all people within an age range to determine who would meet the standards should a draft be implemented would require another large chunk of people and money. Typical Democratic idea, wasting more of our tax money for no good reason.

The all-volunteer military contains - surprise!- all volunteers. This means a united force of men and women who are preconfigured to be part of a team that does the job. A drafted military would include large numbers of young men and women who are absolutely abhorred by the prospect of being in the military, causing disunity and discipline issues. Military morale would be ruined. There would also be a large chunk of our young people who would flee to Canada and other shores rather than join the military. What a terrible mess! All because Charles Rangel thinks the children of the well-off should have to enter the military. Even that is a pipe dream, since the elites among us found ways to keep their kids out of the draft back in the day anyway and would likely do it again.

I was drafted and I know what the military used to be. The Vietnam draft-era military included large numbers of criminal types, drug abusers, unmotivated slackers and plenty of people who hated the military and were willing to sabotage their own organizations if necessary to get them out of service. What a terrible mess! Today's military is a far better organization because it is comprised of those who are capable of service and who have chosen to serve!

The draft would ruin us. Is this what Rangel wants, to hurt the USA? Does he hate his country? One of my kids has joined the military, one of six, and I also have one more who may well consider joining. I am certainly in favor of them joining if they choose to do so, but I am vehemently opposed to the draft. If my son has to take up arms, let it be alongside others who have also chosen to do it, others he can depend on. I don't want him fighting alongside someone who might run away, or cause him to be endangered either by incompetence or attitude.

5 comments:

cranky old fart said...

Rengel is just making a point, and a good one.

When the vast majority of the country has no immediate stake in the going to war, feels no real effect on their daily lives, ruinous policies and wars are just that much easier to pursue.

You are, of course, right that an all volunteer force is a much, much better military. There is no question about that.

But that's got zero to do with the point being made.

If a draft were really implemented, this war would come to an immediate end. Hell, if even some simple "war tax" was put in place, the wailing would be deafening!

radar said...

Who says the war would come to an end if the draft was implemented? Have any proof of that at all? Has this ever happened in the past after a draft has been implemented? Hmmm?

Rangel is an idiot, and a dangerous one.

cranky old fart said...

Radar,

You are correct, I have no polling data on this.

But I just don't see soccer moms offering up their cherished college bound sons and daughters to a war with a 30% apporval rating. Do you?

Not to mention the fact that the ones that would be doing the drafting dodged just such a draft last time around.

There is a reason no sacrifice has been asked of the general populace for this war, don't you think?

radar said...

Cranky, you need to read my post above that I posted on the 21st. The military isn't about social impacts or the attitudes of soccer moms. It is about security and defense. The all-volunteer military is by far more suited to that task than a draftee military would be. Why in the world you or anyone else want to make the military a form of punishment instead of a fit fighting force is way beyond common sense!

cranky old fart said...

radar,

You, of course, missed/ignored/ran away from, the entire point of my comment.