Democrat: Reinstate Draft

QueEx

Rising Star
Super Moderator
<font size="5"><center>Key Democrat Wants to Reinstate Draft</font size></center>

Nov 19, 8:00 PM (ET)
Associated Press
By JOHN HEILPRIN

WASHINGTON (AP) - 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.

---

On the Net:

Selective Service System: http://www.sss.gov



http://apnews1.iwon.com//article/20061120/D8LGFSL80.html
 
Charlie Rangle is laboring under the misnomer that white people care less about killing folks than they do money. He also believes that he can craft a bill that will allow those same rich kids to go to war in the same numbers as those of us without wealth. He must think we are stupid enough to believe we don't know what master he serves. When people like him talks this kind of shit, there must be something else cooking they don't want us to pay attention to.

But then, most of us will believe Rangle is only doing this to prevent war. Yall believe anything democrats tell you but he is in fact, INSTITUTING THE DRAFT! Just like he proposed before and it was shot down. Now that democrats are in power, why is he still pressing for a return to the draft?? Because he was chosen by white people to sell the idea it to black people. Harry Reid couldn't do it because most would see it as a racist move. So Rangel was chosen and he is using some slight-of-hand shit hiding behind hatred of Bush and yall will cheer your collective asses off today when tomorrow you'll be sizing up your uniform while all the while STILL blaming bush for the need to go to war.

-VG
 
I agree this is a set up! I think there are other motives behind it. As one man told me regardless of who you chose, democrat or republican, one will stick it in your ass the other will stick it in your mouth.
 
jaspora said:
I agree this is a set up! I think there are other motives behind it. As one man told me regardless of who you chose, democrat or republican, one will stick it in your ass the other will stick it in your mouth.

I am looking at this as an outsider and I have one question: Why isn't there a party that looks after YOUR interest? Was the system set up to prevent it?
This is an honest question.

Thx

Neo
 
neo_cacos said:
I am looking at this as an outsider and I have one question: Why isn't there a party that looks after YOUR interest? Was the system set up to prevent it?
This is an honest question.

Thx

Neo
The better question is: why do people insist on analyzing complex issues solely from a "Party Perspective" ??? Is it because some people have to reduce everything to the simplistic so that they can understand; or, is it because they are too lazy or ill-equiped to look at things any deeper than on the surface ???

Serious question ...

QueEx
 
QueEx said:
The better question is: why do people insist on analyzing complex issues solely from a "Party Perspective" ??? Is it because some people have to reduce everything to the simplistic so that they can understand; or, is it because they are too lazy or ill-equiped to look at things any deeper than on the surface ???

Serious question ...

QueEx

I agree with you, I try to tell people to LOOK AT THE ISSUES and vote for the person who is going to be the best for you. If you VOTE A PARTY LINE you are as stupid as many of us think Bush is.
 
neo_cacos said:
I am looking at this as an outsider and I have one question: Why isn't there a party that looks after YOUR interest? Was the system set up to prevent it?
This is an honest question.

Thx

Neo

Because it's almost never about "your" intrest but for the intrests of those big mega companies that conspire with politicians so votes can go the way they want it. But we are still not too swift when it comes to voting. The establishment parties set up the debate, configure the rules of that debate and thinking outside of those rules get you labeled a sell-out.

The rules here being set up is Rangel, a fuckin long time ESTABLISHMENT DEMOCRAT and ESTABLISHMENT politician is on record saying how Bush and rich republicans WON'T send their rich kids to war or like Kerry phrased it, if you don't do well educationally, you end up in Iraq.

Now fuck the bullshit botched joke aimed at Bush argument because if you put that comment over what rangel is proposing, you'll see the parallel.

Rangel is setting up this strawman that says US DEMOCRATS can protect the less fortunate and less educated of you by stacking those rich kids among you so if you go, they are going too.

How long will it take for you to figure out that Rangel just said, your poor, black, uneducated ass is going in as a result of forced servitude and serve the wishes of the rich and powerful special interests in combat?

Want to take a guess which rich and powerful democrats who will include in that draft bill that their kids won't have to serve in combat roles?

What do they say when those body bags start returning home with the remains of those same poor, uneducated black people? "We drafted rich whites and blacks too so don't be mad with me. The bush administration wouldn't draft their rich friends so what we did is better."

And the worse part of this is, they will run this Bush won't do it argument two years into a President Obama administration and yall still will accept what they say is a better deal.

-VG
 
Last edited:
Charlie's heart is in the right place, but it won't work unless service is mandatory. Otherwise rich kids will get deferments, while poor ones will get drafted. :smh:
 
VG,

If I didn't know any better, I'd say you have a bit of sour grapes. You make a good argument about politicians and their self-interet, but your comments seem to have a definite anti-democrat bent, while not paying equal antipathy towards republicans. Am I reading you wrongly ???

QueEx
 
QueEx said:
VG,

If I didn't know any better, I'd say you have a bit of sour grapes. You make a good argument about politicians and their self-interet, but your comments seem to have a definite anti-democrat bent, while not paying equal antipathy towards republicans. Am I reading you wrongly ???

QueEx
I can answer that. No you are not.
 
ronmch20 said:
Charlie's heart is in the right place, but it won't work unless service is mandatory. Otherwise rich kids will get deferments, while poor ones will get drafted. :smh:
As I read Charlie, that seems to be his point: institute a draft <u>without</u> the exceptions and deferments that were present in the last draft that allowed kids of the rich and/or powerful to evade. As he pointed out, if we had such a draft in place leading up to the Iraq invasion, we probably would not be there, today.

I don't think Rangel believes that his bill will have a snow ball's chance in hell of passing. Charlie will will fight for its passage, but in the end, its just another way of raising an issue. Even if it doesn't pass, down into the future when someone contemplates military action, before government commits to putting boots on the ground and planes in the air, those who make the decisions will hear clearly the voice of Chalrie Rangel ringing in their ears.

QueEx
 
QueEx said:
VG,

If I didn't know any better, I'd say you have a bit of sour grapes. You make a good argument about politicians and their self-interet, but your comments seem to have a definite anti-democrat bent, while not paying equal antipathy towards republicans. Am I reading you wrongly ???

QueEx

What does what I say have to do with sour grapes and so far one tired soul is already making my point. His heart is in the right place? That is too stupid for words.

Now you know me better than that QueEx. I don't give a smooth crap about either party. But ANY party that I feel uses the trusting hearts of Black people for bullshit moves like this I am especially harsh.

Hey ronmch20, how is halle doing since her romp on film with billy boy? lol.

-VG
 
VegasGuy said:
What does what I say have to do with sour grapes and so far one tired soul is already making my point. His heart is in the right place? That is too stupid for words.

Now you know me better than that QueEx. I don't give a smooth crap about either party. But ANY party that I feel uses the trusting hearts of Black people for bullshit moves like this I am especially harsh.

Hey ronmch20, how is halle doing since her romp on film with billy boy? lol.

-VG
I don't know, but I imagine she's doing pretty well. I'd be willing to bet though that even if she knew, she wouldn't be the least bit concerned about some nobody's opinion of her. Now stick to the topic.
 
VegasGuy said:
What does what I say have to do with sour grapes
... ummm .... your continued mention Democrats ....

Now you know me better than that QueEx. I don't give a smooth crap about either party. But ANY party that I feel uses the trusting hearts of Black people for bullshit moves like this I am especially harsh.
Maybe I missed it, but how is the Democratic Party pushing Charlie Rangel up to a "bullshit move" ??? I've followed Charles for a long time, and it seems to me he isn't saying anything he hasn't been saying for the longest. I think Charlie is speaking his <u>own</u> mind. How do you see it differently ???

QueEx
 
ronmch20 said:
I don't know, but I imagine she's doing pretty well. I'd be willing to bet though that even if she knew, she wouldn't be the least bit concerned about some nobody's opinion of her. Now stick to the topic.

Sure she would. Since us nobody's buy the damn tickets. So you are wrong again. lol.

Damn you are too easy.



-VG
 
They need to reinstate the draft. I'm tired of these white folks up in arms with their flags waving about war, then having they sons and daughters here with them.

I KNOW for a fact that war mongering would be a whisper if they had to look at they own kids faces being shipped off over there.

I agree with Chuck, Y'all so ready to push for war, knowing your family aint directly involved, well let's go, and put your kids on the front lines in Bagdad.....
 
firefly said:
They need to reinstate the draft. I'm tired of these white folks up in arms with their flags waving about war, then having they sons and daughters here with them.
.....
Is this a Black vs. White issue; or a Rich/Powerful vs. everybody else ???

QueEx
 
QueEx said:
... ummm .... your continued mention Democrats ....


Maybe I missed it, but how is the Democratic Party pushing Charlie Rangel up to a "bullshit move" ??? I've followed Charles for a long time, and it seems to me he isn't saying anything he hasn't been saying for the longest. I think Charlie is speaking his <u>own</u> mind. How do you see it differently ???

QueEx

Not you too QueEx?? Don't be fuckin' with my image of you man. You think all this is done in a vaccuum? You can't be suggesting that democrats can't orchestrate delusion in the same way republicans orchestrate delusion? Charles Rangel still plays the Bull Connor tape when describing republicans because he believes that most black people don't know that Bull Connor is a democrat.

Don't do that to me man.

Democrat leaders are already saying "we can't pull out of Iraq". Not 2 days after the election they started this one going. That could mean more troops will be going in. That could mean that those democrats that believe the troop strength was not sufficent might opt to send more troops in if this thing gets worse in the way they have been saying it would for the last 2 years solid.

Now Google search until you find when Rangel started this idea of the draft and see if you don't find stories about troop strength. That's the research I did. Then tell me you honestly don't believe that establishment politicians on the left as they are on the right are NOT in the pockets of Big Business, including Rangel. If you can say you believe he is not, it's my last post in your forum.

-VG
 
VegasGuy said:
Sure she would. Since us nobody's buy the damn tickets. So you are wrong again. lol.

Damn you are too easy.



-VG
What is your fixation with Halle Berry? :confused:
Again, this thread is about reinstating the draft. Be patient, sooner or later someone will start some inocuous thread concerning Ms Berry, then you can rale against her all you want. I know it's hard for you, but until then try to stay topical or failing that, just be "quiet". :smh:
 
VegasGuy said:
Not you too QueEx?? Don't be fuckin' with my image of you man. You think all this is done in a vaccuum? You can't be suggesting that democrats can't orchestrate delusion in the same way republicans orchestrate delusion? Charles Rangel still plays the Bull Connor tape when describing republicans because he believes that most black people don't know that Bull Connor is a democrat.

Don't do that to me man.
Brother, where did I suggest that democrats are any more orchestrative than republicans??? Don't think I did. What I said (not suggested) is that Rangel is saying what he personally believes. If your point is that Rangel, a Democrat from New York, is trying to paint republicans in a corner using the draft as the brush and the war in Iraq as the canvass, I would agree with you. As I said above, no one believes Rangel's bill has any chance of passage. While some will say that Charles Rangel, himself, is sometimes delusional, i.e., supporting Bush over the comments made by Chavez in his version of Coming to America, its hard to argue that he's not consistently delusional.

Democrat leaders are already saying "we can't pull out of Iraq". Not 2 days after the election they started this one going.
You're dead wrong. There are "Some" democrats who say we can't pull out just as there are "Some" republicans who feel just the opposite. Hence, my argument above that analyzing shit strictly in terms of party politics ("Democrats this ... Republicans that) misses the real point.

That could mean more troops will be going in. That could mean that those democrats that believe the troop strength was not sufficent might opt to send more troops in if this thing gets worse in the way they have been saying it would for the last 2 years solid.
VG, whether there is an immediate, short-term or long-term withdrawal will not depend on the extremists of either party. It will depend, in my opinion, on the collective minds from both parties that will act as the American public opinion shapes over the next couple of years. I wouldn't get too caught up in the political rhetoric of the extremes in the meantime. When you take out the "Stay the Course" till the end; and the "Withdraw Tomorrow Morning" extremes from both parties, the end result will be something towards the middle.

There are individual Democrats and Republicans that know Iraq has become a quagmire -- regardless of what either "Party's" particular line might be.

Now Google search until you find when Rangel started this idea of the draft and see if you don't find stories about troop strength. That's the research I did. Then tell me you honestly don't believe that establishment politicians on the left as they are on the right are NOT in the pockets of Big Business, including Rangel. If you can say you believe he is not, it's my last post in your forum.

-VG
No, I'm not going to Google it. If you want to post what you're talking about, I will be more than happy to read it. I'm not going to go on a wild-google-chase of hundreds/thousands of articles, perhaps, and then try to figure which one of those you're relying upon. If thats too much and that halts your comments, I'm sorry.

Peace be with you,

QueEx
 
One of Charles Rangel's chief reasons for reinsituting the draft, as he puts it, is so that the children of the powerful and elite would have to serve, hence, the country's leadership would think twice before it commits to a war.

The following was excerpted from a 2005 article in support of reinstituting a draft. Read and note:
The evolution of this force [our present force in 2006] owes much to Vietnam. After that war ended, the nation's senior generals devised a military structure called the “total force” concept to circumvent two of the great moral hazards they identified with Vietnam: the failure to mobilize the nation, with all of its strata and segments, for the war; and the reliance on young American conscripts [draftees], who were coerced by the state to kill or be killed.

Vietnam had been fought almost entirely by active-duty volunteers and conscripts. A great number of young men, including many from the nation's privileged classes, sought refuge in the reserves as a way out of duty in Vietnam. The total force concept entailed, first of all, the splitting of key war-fighting and support functions. Henceforth, (after Vietnam) active-duty troops would perform nearly all the traditional combat roles; reservists would provide most of the support functions, such as logistics and military policing. This ensured that future wars could not be fought without the heavy involvement of the reserves. <u>Army Gen. Creighton Abrams and other leaders felt that this would be a check on the power of presidents to go to war because mass reserve call-ups typically require a great deal of political capital</u>.​

Sounds familiar?

In other words (and I don't need to paraphrase what the author made clear), having to call up the reserves (as was done in Gulf War I and Gulf War II "Iraq") would involve calling up massive amounts of civilian-soldiers which would mean a president would have to have strong backing in order to commit to a war where the reserves would have to be called up.

Apparently, Bush had strong enough support when he decided to invade Iraq. Moreover, however, if there had been a draft at the time of the Iraq invasion and the Army and Marines had been comprised of the sons and daughters of the elite and powerful, given the support Bush had at time of the invasion, would it have made any difference ??? That is, if the support for war is strong enough in the minds of the public, would the fact that the children of the powerful and elite are serving really stand as a deterent to war ???

QueEx
 
<font size="4">

Here's the full 2005 article:

</font size>
If you overlook the title of the article, there are some
interesting points, whether you are for or against a draft.



[frame]http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2005/0503.carter.html[/frame]
 
So his response to the rich not sending their kids to war is to send more poor to war because if I was rich or when I am rich I will just do like the rich did back when there was a draft. Send their kids out of the country. Change domicile. Change residence to another country. Find the loop hole and there is always one. I wonder if Charlie considers himself rich.




VegasGuy said:
Because it's almost never about "your" intrest but for the intrests of those big mega companies that conspire with politicians so votes can go the way they want it. But we are still not too swift when it comes to voting. The establishment parties set up the debate, configure the rules of that debate and thinking outside of those rules get you labeled a sell-out.

The rules here being set up is Rangel, a fuckin long time ESTABLISHMENT DEMOCRAT and ESTABLISHMENT politician is on record saying how Bush and rich republicans WON'T send their rich kids to war or like Kerry phrased it, if you don't do well educationally, you end up in Iraq.

Now fuck the bullshit botched joke aimed at Bush argument because if you put that comment over what rangel is proposing, you'll see the parallel.

Rangel is setting up this strawman that says US DEMOCRATS can protect the less fortunate and less educated of you by stacking those rich kids among you so if you go, they are going too.

How long will it take for you to figure out that Rangel just said, your poor, black, uneducated ass is going in as a result of forced servitude and serve the wishes of the rich and powerful special interests in combat?

Want to take a guess which rich and powerful democrats who will include in that draft bill that their kids won't have to serve in combat roles?

What do they say when those body bags start returning home with the remains of those same poor, uneducated black people? "We drafted rich whites and blacks too so don't be mad with me. The bush administration wouldn't draft their rich friends so what we did is better."

And the worse part of this is, they will run this Bush won't do it argument two years into a President Obama administration and yall still will accept what they say is a better deal.

-VG
 
Never mind what I said about not posting in this forum. It is the strongest forum on BGOL in my opinion. Having said that, I stand by what I said earlier and I don't trust politicians.

-VG
 
You cool. I think (or at least I have hopes) that respectfully challenging each others ideas, without being rude to each other, is what this board is all about.

QueEx
 
<font size="5"><center>A Fresh Look at the Draft</font size></center>

Strategic Forecasting
Geopolitical Intelligence Report
By George Friedman
November 21, 2006

New York Democrat Charles Rangel, the new chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, has called for the reinstatement of the draft. This is not new for him; he has argued for it for several years. Nor does Rangel -- or anyone else -- expect a proposal for conscription to pass. However, whether this is political posturing or a sincere attempt to start a conversation about America's military, Rangel is making an important point that should be considered. This is doubly true at a time when future strategies are being considered in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the available force is being strained to its limits.

The United States has practiced conscription in all major wars since the Civil War. During the Cold War, the United States practiced conscription continually, using it to fight both the Korean and Vietnam wars, but also to maintain the peacetime army. Conscription ended in 1973 as the U.S. role in Vietnam declined and as political opposition to the draft surged. From that point on, the United States shifted to a volunteer force.

Rangel's core criticism of the volunteer force is social. He argues that the burden of manning the military and fighting the war has fallen, both during Vietnam War conscription and in the volunteer army, for different reasons, on the lower and middle-lower classes. Apart from other arguments -- such as the view that if the rich were being drafted, the Vietnam and Iraq wars would have ended sooner -- Rangel's essential point is that the way the United States has manned the military since World War II is inherently unjust. It puts the lower classes at risk in fighting wars, leaving the upper classes free to pursue their lives and careers.

The problem with this argument is not the moral point, which is that the burden of national defense should be borne by all classes, but rather the argument that a draft would be more equitable. Rangel's view of the military and the draft was shaped by Vietnam -- and during Vietnam, there was conscription. But it was an inherently inequitable conscription, in the sense that during most of the war, deferments were given for students. That deferment, earlier in the war, extended to graduate school. As a result, by definition, the less-educated were more vulnerable to conscription than the more-educated. There were a host of deferments, including medical deferments, and the sophisticated could game the system easily. A draft, by itself, does not in any way guarantee equity.

During the final years of the Vietnam-era draft, the deferment system was replaced by a lottery. This was intended to (and, to some extent, did) reduce the inequities of the system, although sophisticated college students with low numbers continued to find ways to avoid conscription using the complex rules of the Selective Service system -- ways that the less-educated still couldn't use. The lottery system was an improvement, but in the end, it still meant that some would go into harm's way while others would stay home and carry on their lives. Basing the draft on a lottery might have mitigated social injustice, but basing life-and-death matters such as going to war on the luck of the draw still strikes us as inappropriate.

The switch from deferments to the lottery points out one of the key problems of conscription. The United States does not need, and cannot afford, a military that would consist of all of the men (and now, we assume, women) aged 19-21. That would create a force far too large and far too inexperienced. The lottery was designed to deal with a reality in which the United States needed conscription, but could not cope with universal conscription. Some method had to be found to determine who would and would not serve -- and any such method would be either unfair or arbitrary.

Americans remember World War II as, in many ways, the morally perfect war: the right enemy, the right spirit and the right military. But World War II was unique in that the United States had to field an enormous military. While some had to man truly essential industries, and some were medically disqualified, World War II was a case in which universal conscription was absolutely needed because the size of the force had to be equal to the size of the total pool of available and qualified manpower, minus essential workers. Unless it suited the needs of the military, no one was deferred. Married men with children, brilliant graduate students, the children of the rich and famous -- all went. There were still inequities in the kinds of assignments people got and the pull that was sometimes used. But what made the World War II conscription system work well was that everyone was needed and everyone was called.

Not everyone is needed in today's military. You might make the case for universal service -- people helping teachers and cleaning playgrounds. But there is a fundamental difference between these jobs and, at least in principle, the military. In the military, you might be called on to risk your life and die. For the most part, that isn't expected from teacher's aides. Thus, even if there were universal service, you would still be left with the dilemma of who gets to teach arts and crafts and who goes on patrol in Baghdad. Universal conscription does not solve the problem inherent in military conscription.

And there is an even more fundamental issue. During World War II, conscription, for just about everyone, meant service until the end of the war. During the Cold War, there was no clear end in sight. Since not everyone was conscripted, having conscripts serve until the end of the war could mean a lifetime of service. The decision was made that draftees would serve for two years and remain part of the reserve for a period of time thereafter.

Training during World War II took weeks for most combat specialties, with further training undertaken with soldiers' units or through combat. In World War II, the United States had a mass-produced army with plenty of time to mature after training. During Vietnam, conscripts went through basic training and advanced training, leaving a year for deployment in Vietnam and some months left over after the tour of duty. Jobs that required more complex training, from Special Forces to pilots to computer programmers, were handled by volunteers who served at least three years and, in many cases, longer. The draftee was used to provide the mass. The complexities of the war were still handled by a volunteer force.

The Battle of the Bulge took place 62 years ago. The Tet Offensive was nearly 39 years ago. The 90-day-wonder officers served well in World War II, and the draftee riflemen were valiant in Vietnam, but military requirements have changed dramatically. Now the military depends on highly trained specialists and groups of specialists, whose specialties -- from rifleman to warehouse worker -- have become more and more complex and sophisticated. On the whole, the contemporary Army, which historically has absorbed most draftees, needs more than two years in order to train draftees in their specialties, integrate them with their units and deploy them to combat.

Today, a two-year draft would be impractical because, on the whole, it would result in spending huge amounts of money on training, with very little time in actual service to show for it. Conscription could, of course, be extended to a three- or even four-year term, but with only selective service -- meaning that only a fraction of those eligible would be called -- that extension would only intensify the unfairness. Some would spend three or four years in the military, while others would be moving ahead with schools and careers. In effect, it would be a huge tax on the draftees for years of earnings lost.

A new U.S. draft might force the children of the wealthy into the military, but only at the price of creating other inequities and a highly inefficient Army. The training cycle and retention rate of a two-year draft would swamp the Army. In Iraq, the Army needs Special Forces, Civil Affairs specialists, linguists, intelligence analysts, unmanned aerial vehicle operators and so on. You can draft for that, we suppose, but it is hard to imagine building a force that way.

A volunteer force is a much more efficient way to field an Army. There is more time for training, there is a higher probability of retention and there are far fewer morale problems. Rangel is wrong in comparing the social base of this Army with that of Vietnam. But the basic point he is trying to make is true: The makeup of the U.S. Army is skewed toward the middle and lower-middle class. But then, so are many professions. Few children of the wealthy get jobs in the Social Security Administration or become professional boxers. The fact that the Army does not reflect the full social spectrum of the country doesn't mean very much. Hardly anything reflects that well.

Still, Rangel is making an important point, even if his argument for the draft does not work. War is a special activity of society. It is one of the few in which the citizen is expected -- at least in principle -- to fight and, if necessary, die for his country. It is more than a career. It is an existential commitment, a willingness to place oneself at risk for one's country. The fact that children of the upper classes, on the whole, do not make that existential commitment represents a tremendous weakness in American society. When those who benefit most from a society feel no obligation to defend it, there is a deep and significant malaise in that society.

However, we have been speaking consistently here about the children of the rich, and not of the rich themselves. Combat used to be for the young. It required stamina and strength. That is still needed. However, there are two points to be made. First, many -- perhaps most -- jobs in today's military that do not require the stamina of youth, as proven by all the contractors doing essentially military work in Iraq. Second, 18- to 22-year-olds are far from the most physically robust age group. Given modern diet and health regimens, there are people who are substantially older who have the stamina and strength for combat duty. If you can play tennis as well as you claim to for as long as you say, you can patrol a village in the Sunni Triangle.

We do not expect to be taken seriously on this proposal, but we will make it anyway: There is no inherent reason why enlistment -- or conscription -- should be targeted toward those in late adolescence. And there is no reason why the rich themselves, rather than the children of the rich, should not go to war. Or, for that matter, why older people with established skills should not be drawn into the military. That happened in World War II, and it could happen now. The military's stove-pipe approach to military careers, and the fact that it allows almost no lateral movement into service for 40- to 60-year-olds, is irrational. Even if we exclude combat arms, other specialties could be well-served by such a method -- which also would reduce the need for viciously expensive contractors.

Traditionally, the draft has fallen on those who were barely adults, who had not yet had a chance to live, who were the least equipped to fight a complex war. Other age groups were safe. Rangel is talking about drafting the children of the rich. It would be much more interesting, if the United States were to introduce the draft, to impose it in a different way, on entirely different age groups. Let the young get on with starting their lives. Let those who have really benefited from society, who have already lived, ante up.

Modern war does not require the service of 19-year-olds. In the field, you need the strong, agile and smart, but we know several graying types who still could hack that. And in the offices that proliferate in the military, experienced businesspeople would do even better at modernizing the system. If they were drafted, and went into harm's way, they would know exactly what they were fighting for and why -- something we hardly think most 19-year-olds really know yet.

Obviously, no one is going to adopt this crackpot proposal, even though we are quite serious about it. But we ask that you take seriously two points. Rangel is correct in saying that the upper classes in American society are not pulling their weight. But if the parents haven't served, we cannot reasonably expect the children to do so. If Americans are serious about dealing with the crisis of lack of service among the wealthiest, then they should look to the wealthiest first, rather than their children.

Send questions or comments on this article to analysis@stratfor.com.
 
QueEx said:
You cool. I think (or at least I have hopes) that respectfully challenging each others ideas, without being rude to each other, is what this board is all about.

QueEx

And why I respect this forum bruh. Props. I like the challange of ideas. I think that existing ideas should always be challanged to make sure we keep focus on changing times.

-VG
 
VegasGuy said:
Charlie Rangle is laboring under the misnomer that white people care less about killing folks than they do money. He also believes that he can craft a bill that will allow those same rich kids to go to war in the same numbers as those of us without wealth. He must think we are stupid enough to believe we don't know what master he serves. When people like him talks this kind of shit, there must be something else cooking they don't want us to pay attention to.

But then, most of us will believe Rangle is only doing this to prevent war. Yall believe anything democrats tell you but he is in fact, INSTITUTING THE DRAFT! Just like he proposed before and it was shot down. Now that democrats are in power, why is he still pressing for a return to the draft?? Because he was chosen by white people to sell the idea it to black people. Harry Reid couldn't do it because most would see it as a racist move. So Rangel was chosen and he is using some slight-of-hand shit hiding behind hatred of Bush and yall will cheer your collective asses off today when tomorrow you'll be sizing up your uniform while all the while STILL blaming bush for the need to go to war.

-VG
I really get tired of people who are not nearly as knowledgeable as they would have others believe, making foolish statements, without any concrete evidence to support their inane pronouncements.

To label Rangle a house Negro, or a tool of the white man is tantamount to a dog baying at the moon. Rangle will be the Rep of the 15th congressional district as long as he lives or as long as he wishes.

Perhaps you would take the time to research Rangle’s voting record, as well as some of the bills he has sponsored, before you make such obtuse statements. But then people who like to throw stones seldom bother to state facts.

Bills such as:

In 1987, at the height of the battle against apartheid, Congressman Rangel led the effort to include in the Internal revenue Code one of the most effective anti-apartheid measures, denial of tax credits for taxes paid to South Africa. This measure resulted in several Fortune 500 companies leaving South Africa. In addition, Congressman Rangel played a vital role in restoring the democratic government in Haiti

H.CON.RES.60 : Acknowledging African descendants of the transatlantic slave trade in all of the Americas with an emphasis on descendants in Latin America and the Caribbean, recognizing the injustices suffered by these African descendants, and recommending that the United States and the international community work to improve the situation of Afro-descendant communities in Latin America and the Caribbean.

H.CON.RES.109 : Honoring Army Specialist Shoshana Nyree Johnson, former prisoner of war in Iraq.
Sponsor: Rep Rangel, Charles B. [NY-15] (introduced 3/17/2005)

H.CON.RES.352 : Recognizing the contributions of the New York Public Library's Schomburg Center for Research in Black Culture in educating the people of the United States about the African-American migration experience, and for other purposes.
Sponsor: Rep Rangel, Charles B. [NY-15] (introduced 3/7/2006) Cosponsors (None)


I don’t really expect you, or people like you to take the time to discover some of the facts, it is always easier for you to make stupid statements without any thought.

http://rangel.house.gov/links.shtml
 
<center>
!All this and that don't mean shit to me.. this is not our system!
<font size=4 color=blue>!Listening involves hard work .. Using hearing, sensing, interpretation, evaluation and response!</font></center>

<center>

<font size=4 color=blue>!! .... When I become a legislator .... !!
</font>
<font size=4 color=blue>!! .... Caveat Emptor .... !!
</font>
<img src="http://www.siu.edu/~bas/Images/bpfist.gif">
!There is nothing new under the sun!
Biblically! The so-called American Blacks are descendants of Abraham, namely Jacob (Israel) and his twelve sons and their wives, 70 in all, migrated from Canaan to Egypt around the year 1827 B.C. During their sojourn in Egypt the Children of Israel multiplied from being a family of 70 souls to a nation of over 3 million people at the time of the Exodus which took place in 1612 B.C.
This truth is grossly neglected, suppressed, and distorted in most European and American historical texts which are flavored with race prejudice. Fortunately, however, there are enough well authored and highly researched works by Black historians that challenge the Eurocentric revisions of history and correct the various erroneous views regarding the ethnic identity of the Hebrews.

</center>
 
Blkvoz said:
I really get tired of people who are not nearly as knowledgeable as they would have others believe, making foolish statements, without any concrete evidence to support their inane pronouncements.

To label Rangle a house Negro, or a tool of the white man is tantamount to a dog baying at the moon. Rangle will be the Rep of the 15th congressional district as long as he lives or as long as he wishes.

Perhaps you would take the time to research Rangle’s voting record, as well as some of the bills he has sponsored, before you make such obtuse statements. But then people who like to throw stones seldom bother to state facts.

Bills such as:

In 1987, at the height of the battle against apartheid, Congressman Rangel led the effort to include in the Internal revenue Code one of the most effective anti-apartheid measures, denial of tax credits for taxes paid to South Africa. This measure resulted in several Fortune 500 companies leaving South Africa. In addition, Congressman Rangel played a vital role in restoring the democratic government in Haiti

H.CON.RES.60 : Acknowledging African descendants of the transatlantic slave trade in all of the Americas with an emphasis on descendants in Latin America and the Caribbean, recognizing the injustices suffered by these African descendants, and recommending that the United States and the international community work to improve the situation of Afro-descendant communities in Latin America and the Caribbean.

H.CON.RES.109 : Honoring Army Specialist Shoshana Nyree Johnson, former prisoner of war in Iraq.
Sponsor: Rep Rangel, Charles B. [NY-15] (introduced 3/17/2005)

H.CON.RES.352 : Recognizing the contributions of the New York Public Library's Schomburg Center for Research in Black Culture in educating the people of the United States about the African-American migration experience, and for other purposes.
Sponsor: Rep Rangel, Charles B. [NY-15] (introduced 3/7/2006) Cosponsors (None)


I don’t really expect you, or people like you to take the time to discover some of the facts, it is always easier for you to make stupid statements without any thought.

http://rangel.house.gov/links.shtml

And what does that have to do with the draft again? I think I missed it.

-VG
 
VegasGuy said:
And what does that have to do with the draft again? I think I missed it.

-VG
Of course you missed it.

But as you pointed out my statement really has no more to do with the draft, than does your characterization of Rangle as a tool of the white man. An allegation, that in my estimation is lacking in substance.
 
<font size="5"><center>Selective Service to Test Draft Machinery</font size>
<font size="4">Selective Service System Plans Comprehensive
Test of Military Draft Machinery</font size></center>

ABC News
By KASIE HUNT

WASHINGTON Dec 22, 2006 (AP)— The Selective Service System is making plans to test its draft machinery in case Congress and President Bush need it, even though the White House says it doesn't want to bring back the draft.

The agency is planning a comprehensive test not run since 1998 of its military draft systems, a Selective Service official said. The test itself would not likely occur until 2009.

Scott Campbell, the service's director for operations and chief information officer, cautioned that the "readiness exercise" does not mean the agency is gearing up to resume the draft.

"We're kind of like a fire extinguisher. We sit on a shelf," Campbell told The Associated Press. "Unless the president and Congress get together and say, 'Turn the machine on' … we're still on the shelf."

Veterans Affairs Secretary Jim Nicholson prompted speculation about the draft Thursday when he told reporters in New York that "society would benefit" if the U.S. were to bring back the draft. Later he issued a statement saying he does not support reinstituting a draft.

The administration has for years forcefully opposed bringing back the draft, and the White House said Thursday that policy has not changed and no proposal to reinstate the draft is being considered.

The "readiness exercise" would test the system that randomly chooses draftees by birth date and its network of appeal boards that decide how to deal with conscientious objectors and others who want to delay reporting for duty, Campbell said.

The Selective Service will start planning for the 2009 tests next June or July, although budget cuts could force the agency to cancel them, Campbell said.

President Bush said this week he is considering sending more troops to Iraq and has asked Defense Secretary Robert Gates to look into adding more troops to the nearly 1.4 million uniformed personnel on active duty.

According to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, increasing the Army by 40,000 troops would cost as much as $2.6 billion the first year and $4 billion after that. Military officials have said the Army and Marine Corps want to add as many as 35,000 more troops.

Recruiting new forces and retaining current troops is more complicated because of the unpopular war in Iraq. In recent years, the Army has accepted recruits with lower aptitude test scores.

In remarks to reporters, Nicholson recalled his own experience as a company commander in an infantry unit that brought together soldiers of different backgrounds and education levels "in the common purpose of serving."

Rep. Charles Rangel, a New York Democrat, plans to introduce a bill next year to reinstate the draft. House Speaker-elect Nancy Pelosi has said such a proposal would not be high on the Democratic-led Congress' priority list.

Hearst Newspapers first reported the planned test for a story sent to its subscribers for weekend use.

The military drafted people during the Civil War and both world wars and between 1948 and 1973. Reincorporated in 1980, the Selective Service System maintains a registry of 18-year-old men, but call-ups have not occurred since the Vietnam War.


Associated Press writers Sara Kugler in New York and Devlin Barrett in Washington contributed to this report.


Copyright 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=2744716
 
Back
Top