Senior Democrat renews call for military draft

Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by Quigley_Sharps, Nov 19, 2006.

  1. Quigley_Sharps

    Quigley_Sharps The Badministrator Administrator Founding Member

    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 (news, bio, voting record), 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 (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, 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.

    :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

    You might get to see military service after all! And thanks to the Anti War Dems.
  2. kckndrgn

    kckndrgn Monkey+++ Moderator Emeritus Founding Member

    It was defeated 402-2 the following year

    Um, ok, so there 402 Republicans that defeated this bill??? With a bill getting creamed like this he thinks that just cause the Dems control congress that it will get passed???

    He's gotta be smokin' somethin that ain't legal.

  3. Tango3

    Tango3 Aimless wanderer

    Rangel thinks rich kids will get drafted, he's been smokin with bill and hill, college deferrments "noncombat national guards"....out and out bribes,My tinfoil side says he's nuts....
  4. ghrit

    ghrit Bad company Administrator Founding Member

    Whatever he's smoking, he's been on the wrong side of most fences since Jesus was a pup. However, getting rid of the draft was a mistake, as I've said before and no doubt will say again. There is no reason why we can't have something akin to National Service as other countries have, and there is equally no reason why such service has to be military only. JMO.
  5. monkeyman

    monkeyman Monkey+++ Moderator Emeritus Founding Member

    Interesting that I see this tonight. I was just noticeing at work today when a teenage male came into the store with his 2 friends and he was obviously military (in his BDUs with the haircut from basic and such) just how much it stood out the the words 'sir' and 'mam' were a strong and natural part of his vocabulary when adressing people while not so from his friends, or most any other teen I have encountered for some time.

    While I dont believe that a draft would be equaly applied to all economic groups by any means and am not entirely sure I suppoert the idea of forced service, I do see where military service could be a wonderful thing for a lot of our young people and especialy those least likely to volunteer and could at the same time improve the strength of our military beyond what it already is as well as our society.
  6. TailorMadeHell

    TailorMadeHell Lurking Shadow Creature

    I believe that some type of constructive service will do kids a world of good, however I do not see the draft as something that will be constructive. First it will not be the rich kids that go. It will be the same thing as it was for all the past drafts. So they will be very selective. Hmmm.... selective, where have I heard that before? Oh yes, when you hit eighteen you sign up with the Selective Service. Now I know why rich kids don't go.

    Secondly, I do not want to have to worry that somebody who doesn't want to be there in the first place will be Not guarding my back. Instead they are dreaming of their video games, bar nights, ex-wives or what have you at home. I would rather a guy that knows he will be getting in deep watching over me than someone who was forced to do it.

    Just my two cents on it.
  7. prepareordie

    prepareordie Monkey+++

    Monkeyman - have to disagree with you on this one. I served from 1976-1996. During my first year or two in I came across a lot of drafties finishing up their time. With few exceptions they were worthless and did the minimum to get by. All they did was bitch and complain about being drafted and counted the days till they were "free" again. IMHO the volunteer service has greatly increased the professionalism of our services. The only time I would support a draft is in another WW2 situation. I would rather have someone watching my back that wanted to be there than some one who was forced to be there. Regards, Prepareordie
  8. monkeyman

    monkeyman Monkey+++ Moderator Emeritus Founding Member

    I can definatly see the point on that as well, I figure they could at least handle latrine duty and free up the volunteers for other duties though and they at least learn that 'the minimum to get by' is something more than setting back and collecting a welfare check and food stamps and hopefuly at least for some teach them the respect for others and responsibility for them selves that FAR to many parents now days dont bother to teach their kids.

    I also have problems with the idea of a draft and cant honestly say that I support the idea, but I can see at least SOME up sides to it. In fact more by number than the down sides but takeing away the freedom to CHOOSE to serve or not holds more weight for me than the up sides. So, like I say I dont support it happening but could see some perks in the idea.
  9. ghrit

    ghrit Bad company Administrator Founding Member

    POD --When I was in, the draft was still fully in place (63-70) tho' there were no draftees in the my branch. Not being able to say how well draftees served, I can say without fear of contradiction that they did something useful for the service. Loading trucks with bulk supplies or latrine cleaning does not take a lot of dedication, but it does take a pretty tough Sgt. to keep them moving. And, at 73 USD a month there is little surprise that the draftees wanted out. Us volunteers didn't care much for the pay scale either --. Granted, from what I've been told, there were plenty of pantywaists, fruits, nuts and shirkers (had them in the all volunteer branches, too) that ducked and underperformed, those that you don't want covering your back, but those pretty readily were weeded out and made into REMFs.

    MM-- In any case, draftee or volunteer, we all went home with an exposure to self discipline, duty and responsibility, something the kids today don't see often. No matter, volunteer or draftee, everyone had a taste of less than desirable duty, it made you want to perform better to get a better billet/duty station. If the draft worries a prospect, makes him/her think to wind up in a less than desirable billet, he can volunteer for a better one like I did (there are honorable ways to dodge the draft.) I don't see the downside to the draft.

    I disagree that the all volunteer setup has increased the professionalism, either. What it has done is reduce the pool of trained personnel that can be called on in time of need. We played catchup in WWII, and likely the war would not have lasted as long as it did for that reason. The draft was (among other things) instituted to prevent that very shortage of trained personnel in the event of another "conflict". And the latrine cleaning duty is now done by contractors that are non combatants by definition, that are there for the money, and are not going to watch your baffles for you in any case. What's the difference between them and the goldbricks? Only that they get paid more. And worse, the professional (volunteer) warriors now have to provide protective services because the contractors do not have the training to fight for themselves if necessary, further diluting the already thin broth.

    And on and on. This thread started on a surprise call for reinstatement of the draft. I support that thought, even tho' my opinion of the guy that called for it is lower than shrimp shit.
  10. Blackjack

    Blackjack Monkey+++

    I'm so torn on the draft issue I don't know where to start.

    If you can be drafted to fight, it's certainly NOT a free country.

    I am glad I did my time though.

    Problem with the senators plan, it still won't get other senators sons in the action. They've always had ways out and always will.
survivalmonkey SSL seal warrant canary