As a result this is what we get Rep. Rangel will seek to reinstate draft 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 (news, bio, voting record), 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 (news, bio, voting record), 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.
Really its an obsurd point the draft is not going to be reinstated and btw 7 out of 10 Americans are against it. Don't get me wrong I'm not saying it never will but at this point in the ball game not.
yes but you still felt the need post this attack on the left on this messageboard where we already know your standing and don't care.
You see everything on the surface level only Grim. Just about every Democrat that took a Republican seat ran as a conservative. At the same time all the cabinet positions are being filled by liberals, Rangel being one that way out there. The point is that the people are not getting what they were thinking when they voted for a conservative Democrat ticket.
Anybody else still have their selective service card? Mine is still in my wallet....LOL. Geez that was a long time ago....Hey I just read it and apparently I can get rid of it after my 26th birthday....dang been carrying this around a little too long...
Ironic that people used to join the National Guard to get out of going to war. We're getting deployed left and right now.
Well, they certainly have you all where they want you. The illusion of democracy keeps the masses in check. When bad cop isn't going to get away with something, they bring good cop in to do the dirty. At the end of the day, the military-industrio complex and all the corporate fat cats are still happy.
This blogger seems to have an opinion for ole Rangle “Sgt. Mom” is a freelance writer and retired Air Force NCO who blogs at www.sgtstryker.com, and lives in San Antonio Caught in the Draft? Draft legislation… again! Yes, thank you very much, Charlie Rangel, your input is much appreciated. BTW, I listened to you be interviewed on NPR last week, and from your own words, two things were immediately clear to me. One, that you seem to prefer dismissing your critics by calling them names. Secondly, you appear to think of the whole mighty apparatus of the state as merely some kind of huge teat which you have the power to squeeze vigorously and produce thereby an array of benefits for your constituency. I appreciate that this is why politicians are re-elected; they service their districts/community/state or whatever, but most of them do not sound so nakedly obvious about it: they make a convincing pretense of attending to the interests of the nation as a whole. Discussing how the military is staffed and where it is fielded are legitimate concerns, and open for discussion, but attempting to rectify them by reinstituting a draft is… well, ill-advised. The military itself has been all-volunteer for over thirty years, and Rep. Rangel might be informed that the volunteer military is actually pretty well representitive of American society… those bits it between the very poor, and the very rich… and the coasts! Everyone who has signed on the dotted line and taken the oath has done so because they want to be there; right, tight, professional and squared away. Who wants to deal with whiney, physically-unfit, unmotivated and useless proto-civilian a-holes on short tours of duty? Not an NCO I know of looks forward to that prospect. Dealing with people who don’t want to be there is more trouble than it would be worth; and a universal draft would bring in more than could ever be made use of. Just what we need; a large barely-trained, minimally skilled military, most of whom wouldn’t be in service long enough to learn anything useful. It’s not like it’s World War II , or previous wars fought by drafted armies. These were fought by teaching large numbers of variously motivated draftees over a short time to march, and shoot, and then packing them off toot-sweet off to the front. It may also have escaped attention that the necessary skills the military needs these days are a little more complicated than learning how to march and shoot, and therefore need a much longer learning curve… longer than the service-time for a draftee would cover. And some military specialties are so challenging that only someone who is really motivated, and really wants to be there has a hope of qualifying. Yeah, we could use more special forces, more linguists, more brainy innovators, but resorting to a draft to get them would inflict more damage on the services than it would be worth. I suspect Rep. Rangel’s solicitude for the condition of the military is based more on emotion, his political fortunes, or hunger for headlines, than actual concern for military personnel.
There are some good points here. We aren't wanting to fight a war of attrition. Our intent is to be more than cannon fodder; an unfortunate plight of the "doughboys." Involuntary draftees would be little more than a means to divest the enemy of excess ammunition. Our present volunteer military, however, is spread thin based on increasing operational tempo in a "world police" role. I think the draft would cause more dissention and animocity in an already volatile situation. I also think we'd have better recruiting and retention if public opinion supported the cause. As a veteran, I have been embraced by the public, even by those who disagree with the policies that deployed me to the Middle East. That is to say, the military does not bear the public resentment harbored for the powers that be. But all the well-wishing aside, many would not want to join me in what they perceive to be a lost and unjust cause.
I think that is what Rangle would be wishing for. If we started drafting all we would have is a bunch of people going over seas and looking for something to complain about as soon as they got back. The media would be there with microphone in hand saying "ok tell us about the war crimes and atrocities"
