PDA

View Full Version : Key Democrat Wants to Reinstate Draft


Buxom Wench
11-19-2006, 09:29 PM
Key Democrat Wants to Reinstate Draft

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=2666237&CMP=OTC-RSSFeeds0312

House Democrat Will Seek to Reinstate Draft, Saying It Will Deter Officials From Starting Wars
By JOHN HEILPRIN
The Associated Press
WASHINGTON - Americans would have to sign up for a new military draft after turning 18 under a bill the incoming chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee says he will introduce next year.

Rep. Charles Rangel, D-N.Y., said Sunday he sees his idea as a way to deter politicians from launching 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," Rangel said.

Rangel, a veteran of the Korean War who has unsuccessfully sponsored legislation on conscription in the past, has said the all-volunteer military disproportionately puts the burden of war on minorities and lower-income families.

Rangel said he will propose a measure early next year. While he said he is serious about the proposal, there is little evident support among the public or lawmakers for it.

In 2003, Rangel proposed a measure covering people age 18 to 26. It was defeated 402-2 the following year. 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. "I think to do so is hypocritical."

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, 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, 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.

Cyranno DeBoberac
11-20-2006, 10:54 AM
Rangel isn't trying to bring back the draft, he's trying to make a point about the war.

It's unfortunate that he's resorting to such theatrics; legislative tools shouldn't be instruments of rhetoric.

And it certainly doesn't need to be the first thing the new Democratic majority needs to do right out of the gate.

surlywench
11-20-2006, 11:31 AM
legislative tools shouldn't be instruments of rhetoric.



BWAHA - oh...you were serious....sorry.....

Selena
11-20-2006, 01:22 PM
And it certainly doesn't need to be the first thing the new Democratic majority needs to do right out of the gate.


Yeah, that's my take on this, too. Timing is everything.

Buxom Wench
11-20-2006, 01:25 PM
Yeah, that's my take on this, too. Timing is everything.

No offense meant to anyone but, since when have ANY politicians been good with timing?:roll:

Selena
11-20-2006, 01:27 PM
No offense meant to anyone but, since when have ANY politicians been good with timing?:roll:

Hahaaa-- Well, you're right-- I'll give ya that one, Bux! ;-)

Bean
11-20-2006, 08:28 PM
So basically what this idiot is saying that the life of a draftee is more important that the life of a volunteer. What an asshat................

Phoenix McHeit
11-20-2006, 09:07 PM
So basically what this idiot is saying that the life of a draftee is more important that the life of a volunteer. What an asshat................

Ummm... huh? Where'd you get that?

Isabelle Warwicke
11-20-2006, 10:35 PM
Ummm... huh? Where'd you get that?

I think people react more strongly to the idea of draftee's giving their lives than that of those who volunteered to step into harm's way. I see where Cuse would find that in the agenda.

"members of Congress and the administration thought that their kids from their communities would be placed in harm's way" God Forbid...but aren't they already when they enlist?

What an asshat...

Bean
11-20-2006, 10:37 PM
The first line of the article says that reinstating the draft would deter officials from starting wars. Which my mind translated to a draftee is more important than a volunteer.

Cyranno DeBoberac
11-21-2006, 12:10 AM
The first line of the article says that reinstating the draft would deter officials from starting wars. Which my mind translated to a draftee is more important than a volunteer.
Ah. You mistranslated. :-D

The idea behind that deterrence concept is that the demographic of the all-volunteer army is not the same as the demographic of the children of the officials who cause our country to enter into armed conflict.

In other words, you're not going to see Jenna Bush, or Mary Cheney or Nick Rumsfeld in a foxhole anytime soon. Rangel's logic is that officials would be less likely to frivilously send troops off to war if there was even a remote chance that someone they cared about would be one of those troops. Absent a draft, that chance is infinitesmally small.

Cyranno DeBoberac
11-21-2006, 12:13 AM
"members of Congress and the administration thought that their kids from their communities would be placed in harm's way" God Forbid...but aren't they already when they enlist?
Children of the members of this administration and congress generally don't enlist. That's the point. Surely there are exceptions, so I'll save you the trouble of looking up exceptions, but the vast majority of the people responsible for sending troops into conflict have no personal stake in the matter.

What an asshat...Probably, but not for the reasons you think. :-D

Bean
11-21-2006, 07:12 PM
But Bob, that reasoning does prove my point. The "officials" are less likely to send troops someplace if their children are involved. That makes draftees (a select few, anyway) more important than volunteers.

Cyranno DeBoberac
11-21-2006, 07:59 PM
But Bob, that reasoning does prove my point. The "officials" are less likely to send troops someplace if their children are involved. That makes draftees (a select few, anyway) more important than volunteers.
But it's not the "draftee/volunteer" attribute that makes them more or less important, it's the "my daddy is in congress" attribute. And it's not suggesting that person's life is more valuable, it's suggesting that person's life is more valuable to the person making policy decisions.

That's wildly different from your point.

daBaroness
11-22-2006, 10:44 AM
As the mother of a soldier I'd tell the rhetoric-ridden Rangle to shut his frellin piehole! Unless we get into WWIII, our all-volunteer armed forces are the best, most well-trained military in the world. Why? Because they CHOSE to be soldiers and they CHOSE their MOS (specialty). Most of them are very serious about their jobs and their missions - in ways that draftees never were and never could be.

My son returned from Iraq on October 29 and there were NO fatalities in the entire brigade during their deployment. This was a high-speed, high-risk mission for them - fraught with danger 24/7. They went into an area where insurgents were running rampant and brought it under control so that the local citizenry could live relatively peaceful, safe lives. They did this because from the top down they were dedicated to their mission and performed their duties to the best of their abilities. They took pride in themselves and their accomplishments.

Now, just three weeks later - their replacement group has already had two fatalities - a first sergeant and a colonel. Cam called me Sunday night after receiving the news for two reasons - first, he felt bad that this happened right where he was - and for his fallen comrades. Second - he needed to vent because even as they were training their replacements he worried they weren't as buttoned up as they should be and that their lack of concentration and dedication was going to bite them in the ass. He was sadly correct - and he was a bit angry that his brothers in arms - who were regular Army, not reservists - weren't as professional as his unit.

It takes a special kind of dedication, self respect and pride in country to be a professional soldier. The rewards certainly aren't monetary. And it's these volunteer, professional soldiers, sailors and airmen who are the most alarmed at the suggestion of bringing draftees into their numbers!

Rangle's point must be on the top of his frellin head - and I wish he'd shut his big yapper and quit proving he's just another blowhard politician without a clue!

surlywench
11-22-2006, 12:10 PM
As the mother of a soldier I'd tell the rhetoric-ridden Rangle to shut his frellin piehole! Unless we get into WWIII, our all-volunteer armed forces are the best, most well-trained military in the world. Why? Because they CHOSE to be soldiers and they CHOSE their MOS (specialty). Most of them are very serious about their jobs and their missions - in ways that draftees never were and never could be.



sometimes that choice isn't all that much of a willing one, tho. My cousin was "sent" to the Navy by a judge who offered him a criminal record and jail time OR enlistment as his options. He didn't want to do either, and so his mom (he was 17 at the time and was required to enlist on his 18th bday or go directly to jail..) FORCED him into the car and down to the recruiter's office. She's a good woman for having done it, tho.

Another cousin had nearly the same thing happen, and said in his unit "so, what are YOU in for?" was a pretty common way to strike up a conversation.

This type of system works just about as well as a draft, since it doesn't require the recruit to *want* to be there, only that they'd rather NOT be in jail....

Granted it's not the majority, and most of these cases end up the better for it. (one cousin was, the other..not so much..) But when even one guy in a unit doesn't have that focus your son had, bad things happen.

daBaroness
11-22-2006, 12:40 PM
It's no longer legal for judges to order military service in lieu of jail time. Some still do it by getting around the law using various loopholes. But the military is not allowed to accept enlistees who are "sentenced" to military service. Anyone who is - is breaking the law or seriously bending it. I know - because my son had to be clear of several probations before the Army would take him, even after our attorney spoke with the prosecuting attorney and the judge.

DoņaNina
11-22-2006, 01:28 PM
Question!! If a person goes into the military instead of jail, does he still get all of the benefits that normal enlistees get? Like money for college and stuff?

Ysobelle
11-23-2006, 01:38 AM
Listen, this guy may have an idea all of you hate, but at the bottom, he's trying to make a point: NO ONE is taking responsibility for this war, and NO ONE is taking responsibilty for the soldiers. There should be screaming in the streets in every city in this country, and there's just rhetoric and obfuscation.

He knows damned well it won't get out of Congress. He's betting on it-- that's his whole point. But he's frustrated as hell, and he wants to slap Congress around. I say rock on. At least someone's doing something.


ETA: Okay, you know, part of that isn't true. The Democrats rode to power two weeks ago because we've been saying, "Enough is enough, bring them home." So yes, there HAS been screaming, and it HAS worked.

The rest stands, though. It's time, we need a viable plan, and we need to NOT rush headlong into war again.

Cyranno DeBoberac
11-23-2006, 01:55 PM
Listen, this guy may have an idea all of you hate, but at the bottom, he's trying to make a point: NO ONE is taking responsibility for this war, and NO ONE is taking responsibilty for the soldiers. There should be screaming in the streets in every city in this country, and there's just rhetoric and obfuscation.

He knows damned well it won't get out of Congress. He's betting on it-- that's his whole point. But he's frustrated as hell, and he wants to slap Congress around. I say rock on. At least someone's doing something.


The point is valid, but having just regained control of the legislature, it might be a little too early for the Dems to start playing Stupid Rhetorical Tricks.

It's not going to accomplish anything and it might end up giving ammo to the other side of the aisle.

MaidMarion
11-23-2006, 05:38 PM
I may not agree with sending conscientious objectors into battle, there are a lot of people that I would LOVE to see get force to go through boot camp. So many people that need a serious wake up call and attitude adjustment. Yes I do have a specific in mind...hehe.

*HUGS*

K.J.