Charles Rangel's proposal to reinstitute the draft -- just like all his similar proposals in the past -- shouldn't be taken as a serious plan. It's just not going to happen. But that doesn't mean it shouldn't be discussed. A debate over the draft can tell us a lot about the war in Iraq, the war on terror and what we think about the relationship of the government and citizens.
Rangel is wrong when he says "the all-volunteer military disproportionately puts the burden of war on minorities and lower-income families." It puts the burden of war on the people who are willing to fight it, and today's military is a smarter and better-educated group than we've had in a long time. I'm not sure about his point that the draft would make the government more careful about the wars it gets into. It didn't keep us out of Vietnam, but maybe times have changed.
The part of Rangel's proposal that's the hardest to defend is that, even in peacetime, there should be compulsory service that could involve either the military or some other kind of service. If a primary duty of government in a democratic republic is to protect our liberty, how can we allow it to put every citizen into involuntary servitude for two years.
In a time of national emergency, I think most would agree, all should be a part of the defense of the country, which brings up an interesting question. Whether Iraq was necessary for the nation's security depends on whether you think it is a legitimate front in the overall war or terror. But how about that overall war? Is that urgent enough to require the draft?
If it is, how can we leave women out, by the way, given our recent history? I'd say we can't. Maybe that step would make our leaders think long and hard about when and why we go to war.
Comments
Rangel's right, Your wrong. The draft didn't prevent vietnam, but it sure as hell got us out!
Rangel is right when he says says that the burden falls more heavily on the poor and minorities in the all volunteer army. Many who go "willingly" are doing so for a better life to go to school etc.For Many this is the only way out! As of september 2006 81.5% of the military serving in Iraq and Afghanistan had high school diplomas while only 15.7% had college degrees.-DOD statistics under the freedom of information act! The poor have no voice! with a better mixture of the haves and have nots perhaps more will listen and not let wars drag on for years as in vietnam.
You have to be crazy, or really good at lying to yourself, if you actually believe any child of a wealthy family will get drafted, but let's suppose they were drafted. Do you think they'll be put on the front? Or will they be given a polished National Gaurd jet to cruise around in? You can look at Cheny and Bush themselves as perfect examples of this. I think you can safely say Clinton falls into this group of successful dodgers as well.
Rangel is no less a stooge than any republican. He just sounds a little more convincing.
In my opinion they want this draft to continue war at a larger level.
Oh, and Robert, what evidence do you possibly have that would lead you to believe the draft ended vietnam? The Draft was held 12/1969 through 2/1972, and the war doesn't end until 4/1975. I really don't see any relation here buddy :)
I think Robert's on the right track about the draft, Ryan. Draft card burners, protests, people getting college exemptions, married, medical exemptions, going to Canada, and the eventual draft lottery numbers, which I believe my number was a high 206, if I recall correctly, all of this made up some of the fabric of the Vietnam protests and led to the pullout of that mess. Were you there to understand the temperment of the times, Ryan?
Based on some (most) of the kids I see today, I don't doubt at all that some type of mandatory service (doesn't have to be military) would go a long way toward making them more stable, more of an adult, and perhaps make them appreciate the freedoms we all have to work for in this country.
Anybody remember "Starship Troopers" -- the book by Robert Heinlein, not the execrable movie? He writes of a future in which there are two levels of citizenship, the lower level in which everyone has basic rights and a higher one earned only by national service that entitles one to further rights, such as voting. This appeals to me a little more than a couple of years of involuntary servitude that apply to everyone.
The only thing Charlie Rangel will accomplish with this latest publicity stunt is generate more publicity for Charlie Rangel. His claim that "those without options" (that's charlie code for his constituency, most of whom can't wear a rolex and a $3000 suit like Charlie)are the majority fighting and dying in the Armed Forces is not only false, it's laughable.
Mr. Rangel is an opportunist who loves only one thing more than the adoration of "those without options", and that is a
Television camera.
Good lord Leo, have you gone off the deep end?
National service as a prerequisite for voting appeals to you? I suppose since your party is already thumbing their nose at civil liberties why not go the whole nine huh?
The truth is, liberals made exactly the same criticism of the DRAFT during Vietnam, declaring that it tended to discriminate against the disadvantaged, since those able to go to college got college deferments.
Originally, the all volunteer army was touted as more fair, and I think it still is, unless you're somebody who insists other Americans who don't sign up need to be taught a lesson of to satisfy your particular moral outrage. I'm not sure about the quality of that point of view.
Jeff: I wasn't endorsing the idea -- I just said I find it "a little more appealing" than a universal draft, which appeals to me not at all. It's a useful discussion point with which to find out what people think about the relationship of citizens and their government. As for "my party": I don't claim one; since my ideas are mostly a mixture of conservatism and libertarianism, I do tend to vote for more Republicans than Democrats. That being said, however, what civil liberties have you had to give up lately?
Reinstituing conscription (now) is just not reasonable, due to the (mere) fact there are now in place many more legalities for those that wish to "dodge the draft". The ACLU would certainly want to "board that train". The judicial fallout alone would be huge on an already overtaxed system.
In country service of some sort might be the best way to go, as we're seeing children from most all walks of life becoming less and less respectful, moral, and civil to a much higher degree than in generations past.
There is no socio-economic litmus test when discerning bad behavior. Personal irresponsibility holds court in every level of society today...rich OR poor. That needs to change...and soon.
A *down side* to this would be if any "national service" venue becomes just another over-inflated governmental program to further empty the taxpayers' pockets.
The military is NOT for everyone (believe me)...and getting shot at, maimed, and possibly killed is for EVEN FEWER.
The only other alternative to "National Service" would be to have the educational system be given more power (as in days past) to sternly discipline our children, holding them (and their parents) solely responsible for their behavior.
We used to call it ETHICS.
That might instill a better sense of pride, patriotism and a willingness to serve their country (in some capacity)...something many young adults are sorely lacking today.
But hey, that's just my opinion.
B.G.
Quote:
>Good lord Leo, have you gone off the deep
>end?
>National service as a prerequisite for
>voting appeals to you?
Don't forget that Government with a capital "G" gets to make rules for national service. The right to vote would decay accordingly.
Leo-
I suppose I would've said I find BOTH options unappealing. I don't apply relativism to such bad ideas - i.e. I wouldn't say "I find serial killers more appealing than those that commit genocide". An extreme analogy for sure, but it makes the point I think.
I'll give you just one example of civil liberties that have been weakend as I think it's the most important. This administration can now label me an enemy combatent, arrest me, hold me, indefinitely, without any charges and torture me.
But hey, why is that such a big deal? How can you convince yourself that this administration has NOT curtailed civil liberties?
When the administration said it could stress prisoners without torture, it was telling the truth. There have been abuses certainly, but let's be real about enemy interrogation.
Who knew the purists would object to impolitenesses as being equally reprehensible as, say, hooking one up to a car battery? And worse than that, who knew they'd sell this alarmism in the popular media successfully enough to give the world a general misperception of US methods? Some of us who should know better have begun to believe our own partisan hype about "American torture." Look at history and see where we fall on the scale -- but do it honestly or don't bother.