WASHINGTON (Reuters) - An influential Democratic lawmaker on Sunday called for reinstatement of the draft as a way to boost U.S. troop levels and draw a broader section of the population into the military or public service.
U.S. Rep. Charles Rangel, 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 on CBS’ “Face the Nation” 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,” he said.
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. He has said the U.S. fighting force is comprised disproportionately of people from low-income families and minorities.
“I don’t see how anyone can support the war and not support the draft. I think to do so is hypocritical,” he said.
The New York Democrat had introduced legislation to reinstate the draft in January 2003 before the Iraq invasion. The Pentagon has said the all-volunteer army is working well and there is no need for a draft, and the idea had no traction in the Republican-led Congress.
Why did Rangel originally introduce legislation to reinstate the draft in January 2003? Via CNN:
WASHINGTON (CNN) — Rep. Charles Rangel introduced a bill in Congress Tuesday to reinstate the military draft, saying fighting forces should more closely reflect the economic makeup of the nation.
The New York Democrat told reporters his goal is two-fold: to jolt Americans into realizing the import of a possible unilateral strike against Iraq, which he opposes, and “to make it clear that if there were a war, there would be more equitable representation of people making sacrifices.”
“I truly believe that those who make the decision and those who support the United States going into war would feel more readily the pain that’s involved, the sacrifice that’s involved, if they thought that the fighting force would include the affluent and those who historically have avoided this great responsibility,” Rangel said.
“Those who love this country have a patriotic obligation to defend this country,” Rangel said. “For those who say the poor fight better, I say give the rich a chance.”
Now that the Dems have control of Congress, his reasons, of course, have ‘changed.’ How convenient.
Posts
14 comments:
I agree with the late Milton Friedman on most matters regarding human freedom, including the military draft issue. The Democrats do not, as Rangel, like LBJ, illustrates.
I say draft members of Peace and Justice along with all the "Cut and Run" Democrats elected. Let hem all experience what they know nothing of.
I see no inconsistency between Rangel's 2003 position and today's. Can you point them out, game?
do you agree with what he said?
I thought that if Bush beat Kerry, THEN we would have to bring back the draft, what happened?
I am conflicted about what he said. I don't find it evil or sinister, misguided, wrong, or studip. I find it a legitimate position.
That said, hypocrite that I am, I have 13 and 15 year-old sons, and the thought of them serving in the military involuntarily disturbs me.
Having a draft where ANYBODY's son or daughter is subject to being killed in foreign wars will make a HUGE impact on foreign policy. I think the likelihood of the US invading Iraq would have been quite a bit lower if anybody's kids could be in danger.
If Bush is going to send MORE troops to Iraq, invade Iran, and/or invade North Korea, where will the troops come from? Will they lower the acceptable IQ to 50 and raise the maximum age to 65? Will they turn the National Guard into permanent combat status?
How do you get the troops to do these things without a draft?
"Now that the Dems have control of Congress, his reasons, of course, have ‘changed.’ How convenient."
Hey game, you need to stop citing secondary sources. Whomever you got that from didnt cite the whole article. How convenient since the actual AP article contains his statement of why he wants the draft. Its the same as in the 2003 article.
he seems to be using the draft as some reverse affirmative action program
So game, what do you think about what he says? Not whether or not you agree with a draft, but why he says we should have one. Do you disagree?
I totally disagree with Rangel's reasoning. I've heard several interviews of people of means joining up after 9/11. I wouldn't go so far as to say that there aren't those who joined to get educated or for employment with the hopes of not seeing action, but with an all volunteer military, I doubt that they are in the majority. I have no stats to support it, I just think that even without 9/11, there are those who mean to serve, even if combat is likely. I think what Rangel's doing is a little fear mongering, a little class warfare, a little race baiting, by painting the current volunteer situation as a last ditch option for the downtrodden. It's quite similar to the Kerry statement about only the stupid are in the service. I would also take exception to the notion that it would change policy were the offspring of those supporting the war were eligible for the draft. Frankly, if this were true of any of our elected officials, I'd prefer they step down, or away from any foreign policy situations. BTW, does anyone know if Rangel has draft age kids?
Jason,
What did Friedman say about the draft?
a volunteer army is far better than a draft...
The people in the army signed up, it was their free will...
calling for a draft to start more class warfare is a well used page out of the liberal playbook (class warfare), but he sounds like such as ass when he talks, it is hard to find any Dem standing beside him
Bring back the draft, and I leave. Period. I don't care what the reasons are, I don't care how much good people think it will do, I don't care. I'll leave and denounce citizenship. Rangel can go to hell.
marshall--
Here is an account told by David Henderson:
"One of Meckling's favorite stories, which his widow, Becky, recalled in a recent interview, was of an exchange between Mr. Friedman and General William Westmoreland, then commander of all U.S. troops in Vietnam. In his testimony before the commission, Mr. Westmoreland said he did not want to command an army of mercenaries. Mr. Friedman interrupted, "General, would you rather command an army of slaves?" Mr. Westmoreland replied, "I don't like to hear our patriotic draftees referred to as slaves." Mr. Friedman then retorted, "I don't like to hear our patriotic volunteers referred to as mercenaries. If they are mercenaries, then I, sir, am a mercenary professor, and you, sir, are a mercenary general; we are served by mercenary physicians, we use a mercenary lawyer, and we get our meat from a mercenary butcher."
Just checking recent but possibly forgotten topics. Thanks Jason for the anecdote about Friedman. What an intellect!
I would like to add, for any who rifled through the old postings as I sometimes do, that I've recently heard some stats on Medved's show that in the military currently are a good representation of the country, but with the poor the least represented. That would suggest that Rangel's assertions are not based on any facts, but on his personal beliefs, which doesn't surprise. Just the sort of thing for which Christians are often bashed.
Post a Comment