Democrat plans laws to reinstate the draft

[RTO]

A US politician yesterday called for reinstatement of the draft to boost US troop levels and draw a broader section of the population into the military or public service.

US Representative Charles Rangel, a Democrat and the incoming chairman of the House of Representatives' tax-writing committee, said he would introduce legislation to reinstate the draft as soon as the new Democratic-controlled Congress convenes in January.

Asked if he was still serious about the proposal for a universal draft he raised a couple of years ago, he said: "You bet your life. Underscore serious. 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."

Mr Rangel, who opposed the 2003 invasion of Iraq, also said he did not think the United States would have invaded Iraq if the children of members of Congress were sent to fight.

"I don't see how anyone can support the war and not support the draft. I think to do so is hypocritical," he said.

He spoke as senator John McCain, a front-runner among Republican presidential contenders for the 2008 elections, called for an overwhelming number of troops to be sent to deal with the situation in Iraq.

"I believe the consequences of failure are catastrophic. You will see Iran more emboldened. Eventually, you could see Iran pose a greater threat to the state of Israel," he said.

Full Story

[christopherjshim]

Rangers,

From other articles, it sounds like Rep Rangel is floating this primarily as a political tool to embarass this administration and hamper our foreign policy. I'm not in favor of that. However, I am in favor of some kind of draft (however improbable). Five facts:

1. The draft did not end until 1973.

The average American who has a knee-jerk reaction against conscription doesn't realize that America fought and won all of its major wars with a draft in place (on and off). We secured our independence, repelled the British again, preserved the Union, beat back the Germans (twice), saved Korea, and won in Vietnam -- all by relying on not just volunteers, but conscripted servicemen. The argument that draftees inherently make for a poor military must be weighed against America's 200 year history of fighting (and winning) wars with a draft in place.

2. A draft does not necessarily mean mandatory military service.

There is a vast difference between the two. Mandatory military service (like the Koreas or Israel) requires every citizen to serve. In contrast, the American draft in place during the Civil War, WWII, Vietnam, etc, simply made it possible for every American man to enter service -- not everyone actually served. (This is much like the American jury system: all citizens are eligible to serve on a jury, but not all of us do.) Thus, a return of the draft to the US would not necessarily involve the logistical nightmare of training tens of millions of American youth. It would simply make everyone eligible once again for service -- the military would then make the decision as to how many citizens to conscript.

(Of course, the alternative is to have mandatory national service -- as in Germany -- where you can serve your country either in a civic capacity [digging ditches, teaching in the inner-city] or in uniform.)

3. A draft does not do away with volunteers altogether.

The more "elite" units in South Korea, for example, are largely composed of volunteers and career servicemen (every Korean soldier in Iraq is a volunteer). Israel fields an outstanding military of draftees (with a short but absolutely incredible record of success) augmented by a backbone of professionals. We Americans could have a draft and yet have a strong core of volunteers who serve in the NCO and officer corps.

4. The US Army War College's Strategic Studies Institute concluded in a July 2003 paper entitled "Why They Fight: Combat Motivation in Iraq," that soldiers were motivated in combat not by patriotic zeal, but by unit cohesion.

Preaching to the choir here.

Sure, a draftee may initially question why he's there, but give him the right kind of training, build the right kind of unit cohesion, and take him to war, and draftees have historically done a superb example of not letting their brothers down.

5. There's a growing gap between those who make and those who execute America's foreign policy.

Consider: 11,319 Harvard students, alumni and professors! served in WWI; in my graduating class, we had three -- three -- join the military. All four of FDR's sons served in WWII; his most senior aide, Harry Hopkins (the Karl Rove of his day) had an only child who volunteered and subsequently died in the ETO. In contrast, of the 535 senators and representatives who voted yea or nay for the Iraq war, just three -- three -- had kids on active duty (and only one of those was enlisted: the oldest son of Senator Tim Johnson [D, SD] was a Sergeant in the 101st when the latter voted for the war). At the very least, a draft (if conducted well) would equally expose all members of society -- including the privileged, Ivy League-educated sons and daughters of Wall Street-scions, fat-cat politicians and Berkeley professors -- to the decisions we make as a country.

The Athenians understood this.

As did Lieutenant General Sir William Butler, in a quote often (but mistakenly) attributed to Thucycides: "The nation that will insist upon drawing a broad line of demarcation between the fighting man and the thinking man is liable to find its fighting done by fools and its thinking by cowards."

[Silverback]

Our collective memory is very short. Rangle has tried this stunt before.

[Jim]

Charles Rangle (D - NY) served in a field artillery battery in Korea. He served 1948 - 1952. He has raised this issue previously and IMHO it is a class warfare issue. He only made this suggestion to bait the administration.

[Baseplate]

Before they start the draft I think we should make sure that all of the congressmens kids join up first

[Steadfast]

Before they start the draft I think we should make sure that all of the congressmens kids join up first

And no deferment to rich college kids.

But what's the deal just make draft mandatory to all young people as it is done in Israel.

And take it a step further by eliminating the right to vote until after you have served in the miltary or after the 1st 2 years if still serving in the military. & the ones that try to get out of service let them all serve in either the North Pole or Antartica next to Charlie Rangels new home as overseer of those cast aside.

[christopherjshim]

And take it a step further by eliminating the right to vote until after you have served in the miltary or after the 1st 2 years if still serving in the military.

Ranger Steadfast, I think you've been reading Starship Troopers.

I agree with Ranger Jim that this sniffs of a political stunt.

However, I do give Rep Rangel for being morally consistent: he himself served overseas during a time of war (Korea), and his only son served four years as well (though I don't know under what circumstances the latter did so):
http://www.cfr.org/publication.html?id=7946

[AntonA2W]

We should know by now that if they reinstate the draft, VERY FEW kids of rich political families will go. Think of it as a means to control the population of us poor people, since there really is no more "middle class".

[Steadfast]

I was listening to Rush this pm and he said that the last time Rangle introduced this type of bill, Rangle himself voted against it.

[Spartan]

I am all for a required form of national service. But I am sure if it was implemented there are plenty of kids - rich or otherwise - who will escape the requirement to participate in it.

[Silverback]

And take it a step further by eliminating the right to vote until after you have served in the miltary or after the 1st 2 years if still serving in the military.

Ranger Steadfast, I think you've been reading Starship Troopers.

I agree with Ranger Jim that this sniffs of a political stunt.

However, I do give Rep Rangel for being morally consistent: he himself served overseas during a time of war (Korea), and his only son served four years as well (though I don't know under what circumstances the latter did so):
http://www.cfr.org/publication.html?id=7946

Rangle is a worthless dick dribble! He has no Moral direction other than the direction that will cement his position within his equal Dick Dribble-like constituency!

And thanks for the link It's not enough that he populates every channel on the dial for his bullshit?

[hobbit]

It's drafty enough where I live. We had a 60 knot gale and a tsunami last week. I don't want the government messing around with our drafts here in Crescent City. Things are fucked up enough as it is.

[CloakAndDagger]

OK, I'll grant Rep. Rangel the benefit of the doubt, and at least entertain the thought this isn't a political stunt.

My opposition to the draft comes down to one simple concept: time of service. It takes between four to ten months to pass a new troop through the training pipeline. If a kid is to be in the MI, that time can extend to two years before he is in a unit, just beginning to actually learn his job.

IMNSHO, there just isn't time on a draftee's enlistment (I've seen everything from 18 to 24 months suggested) to pass a kid into the pipeline, get him to a unit, train him up to be a productive team member, just to lose him a month or two later to ETS. There would be no continuity in the unit, and we would have to return to individual replacements in the combat theaters. Perhaps we could overcome the problems this raised for our forces a generation ago. About this issue, I am not sanguine.

The draft also brings about perceived differences. Those MOS's that require lengthy technical training by their very nature would be closed to draftees. Many schools are 24 to 32 weeks in duration. It would then fall out that the draftees end up in predominantly Combat Arms or Rock-with-Lips (Laundry and Bath, POL, etc.) MOSs. Granted, somebody must man the 331st Messkit Repair Company, but we would be weeding our draftees into generally higher risk jobs. They could easily be branded by any number of terms. There is one particular term I keep seeing in print that makes me angry:

Cannon Fodder.

I cannot help but think that should we go back to the draft, we will be turning out less well trained troops, and increasing the amount of blood spilled to meet the learning curve combat entails.

I believe we should stand against the draft with every ounce of energy we possess.

The Dem's have been doing this -what- around once a year every time there's a Republican president and a military action. I seem to vaguely remember the Dem's doing the same during Desert Shield/Storm (excuse the vague recollection, I was still in elementary school).

Aside from the political stunt issue, agree with everything you've said, Sapper Mike.

In addition, if they reinstated a draft, I'm sure the training attrittion in all the "brainy" MOS's would go up. You would get (even) more recruits that are thinking smart is code for soft (which is a big enough problem as is). MI is particularly untested against the draft, as most enlisted MI MOSs resulted from Vietnam lessons learned.