While Polimom relapsed with the flu this weekend, a number of interesting stories came out — not least of which was Charles Rangel’s call to renew the draft:
Rep. Charles B. Rangel (D-N.Y.) has long advocated returning to the draft, but his efforts drew little attention during the 12 years that House Democrats were in the minority. Starting in January, however, he will chair the tax-writing Ways and Means Committee. Yesterday he said “you bet your life” he will renew his drive for a draft.
“I will be introducing that bill as soon as we start the new session,” Rangel said on CBS’s “Face the Nation.” He portrayed the draft, suspended since 1973, as a means of spreading military obligations more equitably and prompting political leaders to think twice before starting wars.
“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,” said Rangel, a Korean War veteran. “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.”
There are a number of interesting tidbits tossed all together there, but I have to disagree with several — not least of which is his statement that this president and administration would not have invaded Iraq if there’d been a draft. The visions of sugar plums dancing in their neoconservative heads didn’t include worries about whose kids were there… because in their minds, it was supposed to be easy.
Furthermore, the volunteer armed forces are higher quality, better trained, and more effective overall than they were with a draft.
However — there’s an unpleasant truth here also; the obligations we’re asking our military to meet have stretched them to the limit:
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.
[snip]
Graham said he believes the all-voluntary military “represents the country pretty well in terms of ethnic makeup, economic background.”
It’s true that our military is a pretty good cross-section of our country. However, if Sen. Graham has another option that does not involve the draft, then now would be an excellent time to mention it.
FWIW, I’m part of that American minority that doesn’t disagree with the concept of a draft, generally:
[Rangel] 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.
“Service to the republic” is, in fact, a much broader concept than a military draft, and there are a number of benefits. Unfortunately, if Rangel is actually contemplating the wider service model (is this the same proposal he’s had all these years?), his timing is unbelievably bad. There’s not a chance Americans can have a rational conversation about the draft in the midst of what is already an astoundingly unpopular war.
On the other hand, shouting seems to be what passes for discussion and debate these days, so perhaps his timing isn’t as poor as it looks at first glance… because in that context, folks sure are talking about it.
I’m quite certain Bush would’ve invaded regardless if there was a draft or not. In fact, if there was a draft, the military would be gi-normous and Bush would probably have invaded another country by now.
Hmm, I wonder if this proposal would lead to the end of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. If we need manpower enough to enact some form of conscription, then how can we afford to bar gay men and lesbians from serving (not to mention the people who would lie to get out of it)?
Actually, I don’t think his proposal’s going anywhere, at least at the moment — which more than likely means the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” won’t be confronted either.
There are other options for expanding the military — and they’re less expensive than the draft. For instance: the recruitment enticements could be enhanced to bring in more people. (Ed. — maybe that wouldn’t work either. See here.)
PoliticalCritic — I suspect you’re probably right…
While his proposal may be getting a lot of air time, there is absolutely no way the draft will be passed. People would be absolutely infuriated, not to mention pretty much ruining the reputation of the new Democratic Congress this early into it. However, if there is a draft, women should be a part of it. Trust me, as a 19 year old girl, I do not want to go to any war (since I disagree with the concept of war altogether), but I don’t think we can expect our men to fight for our country and risk their lives without asking those women who can go to do the same thing.
Bush may have had plans to invade Iraq with or without a draft, however, the many votes from Democrats in Congress that agreed with Bush’s decision to go there would not have surfaced.
Remember some of the big selling points of this conflict back when there was that small period of debate. “Advantages” mentioned was a low cost of only a few billion dollars, that we would not be there long, we would be welcomed, and that this was going to be a simple removal of Saddam. If you put a draft into the things “required” for the invasion at the beginning, then it does not suggest a smooth, simple process. Plus it would become much more expensive.
A draft as part of the initial plan would not have helped selling the cause at all.