November 19, 2006
The Draft Returns?
Rep. Charles Rangel, D-N.Y., said Sunday he sees his idea as a way to deter politicians from launching wars. He has introduced legislation to reinstate the draft believing, despite any claims to the contrary, that it will be a way to make the public rise up against the war, indeed any war if their son's and daughter's are likely to be called up in harms way.
I might note that before the 2004 election, the Democrats floated this prescription as a Republican hidden agenda and indeed sent letters out to many families of college age men and women claiming that Bush would institute a draft after the election.
Since that didn't work, he is now doing it much more out in the open. Ahhh, the stench of hypocaracy is heavy in the air.
Actually, I think the draft is probably a good idea. It was the Citizen Soldier that won WWI and WWII coupled with good leadership. But, let's go Rangel one better, let's include zero deferments, include women. Got the guts to do that Rangel? I doubt it. This is strictly a grandstand play by Charlie.
Update: Anti-Military Bias? No question about it and Assistant Village Idiot was absolutely correct, the A&H crowd strikes again.
Posted by GM Roper at November 19, 2006 06:18 PM | TrackBackNeed anymore reasons to have this rangle person institutionalized? he sounds as crazy as AL GORE
Posted by seasick seagull at November 19, 2006 10:38 PM
Rangel's comments are also part of the larger anti-military meme (recently echoed by Kerry's notorious "botched joke") that the volunteer army disproportionately contains the children of the poor and less educated who are the victims of Republican economic policies, ad naseum.
While universal service may be an idea worth debating in an appropriate forum, Rangel is coming from the political conspiracy sector, I believe.
Posted by civil truth at November 19, 2006 11:16 PM
If Rangel really wants an uprising against our use of the military (and, then why do we even have a military?), he could pass a draft enlisting all who fled to Canada to avoid military service but were later pardoned by Jimmy Carter. Then, he could draft mothers and grandmothers who were not subject to prior drafts. Let's go all out!
It's strange. The Democrats accuse Republicans of wanting a draft to make war, and the Democrats want a draft to protest wars. It's amazing their ability to twist actions into preconceived, opposing, and convenient conclusions.
Posted by Woody at November 20, 2006 07:20 AM
Frankly, a draft isn't a bad idea, if only because we're likely to soon open a second front in Iran.
Posted by e. nonee moose at November 20, 2006 12:17 PM
GM is certainly right that Rangel is at odds with most Democrats on this one and that gives the impression of hypocrisy. Rangel is a veteran and is concerned that the majority of servicemen today are from minority and lower-income (and less political influential) backgrounds. A draft would eliminate that disparity. That position iteself, is hardly hypocritical. But it is hardly politically feasable.
GM is also right that part of the motivation for claiming Republicans were thinking of instituting the draft was fearmongering. But I'll be honest, it took me until around 2005 to really believe the administration wasn't willing to institute the draft. I never had enough faith in their word on the matter, and am often confused by what they find politically astute (see the recent firing of Rumsfeld AFTER the elction).
As to Universal Service, while it's got some real merits, I think it's political infeasable. It's a pretty big hit with the hyper-political crowd, but I think it'd wake a sleeping giant among middle and upper-middle clas parents who have worked hard at funneling their kids through all the proper educational hoops (and extra-curricular temptations) to get them to college. Plus, it'd be a major problem for families where, right after high school, the kids are expected to contribute to the family income. It'd be a grand experiment, but I don't see it happening.
Posted by Mavis Beacon at November 20, 2006 01:13 PM
Mavis: "often confused by what they find politically astute (see the recent firing of Rumsfeld AFTER the elction)."
Can't disagree with a single thing there. If he was actually considering firing Rummy, it would have made sense to do it in the middle of the summer. Missteps and trips... A pox on both their houses. And Mavis, was someone as astute as you REALLY taken in by that "draft" claim by the Democrats? Really???
Posted by GM at November 20, 2006 01:40 PM
However, Rangel is mistaken about the military being over-represented by the poor and minorities. The Heritage Foundation did an in-depth study showing that to be completely false.
Rangel said himself that he introduced the bill to make a political statement. Interestingly enough, the only two YEA votes, when it came up in '04, were Murtha and Stark. Even Charlie himself voted NAY along with 12 of his 14 co-sponsors.
Also: There is an identical bill sponsored by Hollings (and no co-sponsors) still just sitting there collecting dust since '03. They ought to just pronounce it DOA and moveon. They have impeachments to orchestrate and taxes to re-work and re-deployments to manage.
Posted by Oyster at November 20, 2006 04:43 PM
ep. Charles Rangel, D-N.Y., said Sunday he sees his idea as a way to deter politicians from launching wars. He has introduced legislation to reinstate the draft...
[B]efore the 2004 election, the Democrats floated this prescription as a Republican hidden agenda and indeed sent letters out to many families of college age men and women claiming that Bush would institute a draft after the election.
Expecting consistency from the Dems is an exercise in futility.
Posted by Always On Watch at November 21, 2006 06:10 AM
If legislation for a draft does eventually pass the House, it must then face a tough battle in the Senate. If it does happen to clear that hurdle then it may very well face the veto of President Bush.
Posted by cfd at November 22, 2006 03:54 PM
The whole idea behind this proposal for the draft is to ensure the American people cannot be duped into wars of choice like the one we are in in Iraq. If the entire country had to face sending their children into war, then the choice becomes clear: We won't go to war unless we have to. There have been too many undeclared wars of choice, and the draft would wake up the American public to the real horrors of war. When your chidren are the ones who have to do the fighting, then diplomacy starts looking a whole lot better.
Posted by Ref at November 26, 2006 12:44 PM
