Now that we opened the door to a Democrat controlled Congress, don’t be surprised to feel a draft.
In the 2004 Presidential campaign, one of the big left-wing lies was aimed at scaring folks by claiming Bush was planning to reinstate the draft. Yet here we are two years later and the main proponent of the draft is a Democrat. This is not the first time Charles Rangel has brought up the subject, as discussed here, but it is the first time he will have the power to act on his brilliant idea (from 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,”
Flimsy evidence? Do we really have to keep having this debate? Does he really believe what he’s saying? Perhaps repeating a lie over and over has convinced him it is true… but facts are annoying little buggers. At the time, everyone in the intelligence community worldwide believed Iraq had WMD’s; Democrats like Kerry and H. Clinton couldn’t get to a microphone fast enough to implore the administration to act on Iraq, Congress overwhelmingly approved the use of force… someone give this man a quarter so he can buy a clue.
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.
Here we go… class warfare, race baiting, call it what you want. Rangel doesn’t want the draft really, what he wants is to make this all about us vs them, poor vs rich, black vs white. Rangel’s war isn’t against Islamic Fascists, it’s all about class and race.
At best his motivation is to drive foreign policy through some misguided belief that Presidents will be reluctant to defend our country if rich kids are in the army. Assuming that’s even true, how is that a good idea?
What is very difficult to understand is how an all volunteer military is unfair to anybody. Do we get a better fighting force through the draft, or would we really wind up with a fighting force painted in John Kerry’s image.
What will be interesting is when the draft displaces lower income people from military jobs… then what? Or is the plan to expand the military?
If Rangel wants to expand the military, how does he propose funding more positions to cover the folks drafted? If the goal is to have less wars, why on earth would the military need to get bigger and how do we justify the expense?
What will need to happen is drafted men and women will need to displace volunteer men and women (like a reverse quota) so that Rangel’s vision can be realized. Then all of those men and women who planned to have military careers will need to find employment elsewhere.
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.
Fortunately, Rangel’s brilliant idea (which has more to do with driving a wedge between races and classes in our country and less to do with actually reinstating a draft) is likely to go nowhere. But this is the type of talent that the Democrats will have running Congress. This man will be the Chairman of the Ways and Means Committee… arguably the most powerful Chair in the House.
If we ever get to a point where we are in a full scale world-wide war with multiple fronts and a draft is necessary for our national security, then so be it. But let’s stop playing games with our national security. Rangel is talking out of both sides of his mouth:
Rangel … sees his idea as a way to deter politicians from launching wars.
… the all-volunteer military disproportionately puts the burden of war on minorities and lower-income families.
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.
“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,”
Which is it Congressman? The draft is to:
- A) prevent politicians from starting wars,
- B) reduce the number of lower income families in the military and increase the number of rich kids serving,
- C) require all 18-26 year-olds to serve their country in some capacity and then pay for their school, or
- D) build up the force numbers to prepare for war with Iran and North Korea.
Or maybe it’s E) ensure the Democrat base feels oppressed and continues to require “heroes” such as Charles Rangel to protect them from the big, bad Republicans.
Update: Gina Cobb zeroes in on the servitude aspect of Rangel’s plan, requiring that every 18-26 years old “serve” our country, essentially eliminating free will and driving this country down a far left path towards communism… we get what we vote for folks… please keep this in mind in two years.
Update II: Enjoying a friendly debate over at Gina Cobb. Looked up so,e info to support my position and found something interesting. If every citizen is required to perform 2 years of service, based upon current census stats, each year approximately 5 million people will be pressed into service. At any given point in time there will be 10 million “volunteers”.
1) How do we plan to pay for the 10 million citizens who will be employed at any one time 2) Since we will have 10 million citizens pressed into service, what do the career military types plan to do for a living, or are we planning to keep all of the career military types PLUS the 5 million new recruits each year (for a total of 10 million since the new recruits will be in place for 2 years).
Update III: Jesse Jackson weighs in:
…in a telephone interview from New York City, said rising costs have pushed college out of reach for many of the poor. That, he said, coupled with shrinking manufacturing jobs, have made it harder for low-income people to find work, leaving military service in a time of war as one of their few options.
Rangel, Jackson said, “Forces the right debate: Why should a privileged body of people benefit from national security, benefit from economic gains with no risk. Another group takes all the risk and gets the least benefit.”
OK… let’s assume for a moment the first statement Reverend Jackson made is correct, wouldn’t this mean even LESS opportunities for low-income people?
More at Rhymes With Right
|
|
|
|