Posted on 11/10/2006 1:56:04 PM PST by neverdem
On January 8th of 2003, Congressman Charles Rangel [D-NY] began an extensive campaign to bring back the military draft. He repeatedly submitted legislative bills to begin a military draft and compel all American men and women up to the age of forty-two to serve two years of military service. Under the Republican-controlled Congress, such bills went down to defeat.
One of the few notable supporters of the draft was Congressman John Murtha [D-PA]. Congressman Murtha reportedly is preparing to campaign to take over the highly influential position of House Majority Leader. Congressman Rangel is set to take over the House Ways and Means Committee. Two proponents of a military draft will most likely take over two key leadership positions in the new Democrat-contolled House. Surely they were not lying to America when they proposed a draft? They would not make such a serious proposal for a mere political cheap shot, would they?
As recently as last February of 2006, Rangel once again introduced draft legislation. In a press release he stated,
“Every day that the military option is on the table, as declared by the President in his State of the Union address, in Iran, North Korea, and Syria, reinstatement of the military draft is an option that must also be considered, whether we like it or not,” Congressman Rangel said. “If the military is already having trouble getting the recruits they need, what can we do to fill the ranks if the war spreads from Iraq to other countries? We may have no other choice but a draft.”
Congressman Rangel says that the requirements of continued war in Iraq would necessitate a draft. Thus it is important to determine whether the new democrat controlled congress will continue the fighting or change course and withdraw US forces from Iraq.
Now that the Democrats are in control of the House and the Senate, a review of their previous policy decisions on the Iraq war will be an important indicator of where the new Democrat Congressional leadership will take the direction of the war. Despite many promises among Democratic incumbents and Democrats to disengage in Iraq, in June of 2006 Senate Democrats overwhelmingly rejected a bill to lay a time table for troop withdrawal from Iraq.
The bill was written by Senator Kerry with only six Democrats voting for the withdrawal. It should also be noted that nearly half of the Congressional Democrats voted for the war in 2002. In late 2005, many Democrats in the House voted against proposals for both an immediate withdrawal and a time table. Considering recent history, the Democrats are unlikely to take a position of disengagement.
As such, it is possible that Congressman Rangel’s latest draft proposal will come up for consideration in the House. With Murtha riding heard over the Democrats, he may well push them to approve Rangel’s draft legislation submitted earlier this year. Rangel and Murtha both served in the military at time of war in Korea and Vietnam respectively. The draft was in effect at the time each man was in the military. Both have called for it publicly or submitted legislation. How long can it be until they get what they asked for now that they are in charge of the House?
According to a press release from the new Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) we can expect an escalation in fighting in Afghanistan. Congresswoman Pelosi said in a press release just a few weeks ago,
“President Bush’s failure to finish the job against terrorism in Afghanistan before launching his ill-advised invasion of Iraq has made the lives of the Afghan people more difficult and the American people less safe. The war against terrorism is in Afghanistan, and unless the President makes winning that war an immediate priority, the risks to the security of the United States will continue to grow.”
Clearly the new Speaker intends to increase troop strength in Afghanistan. She should find support in senior Senator John Kerry (D-MA) who stated in September of 2006,
“When did denying al-Qaida a terrorist stronghold in Afghanistan stop being an urgent American priority?” Kerry said. “How is it possible that we keep sending thousands of additional U.S. troops into the middle of a civil war in Iraq but we can’t find any more troops to send to Afghanistan?”
Since no Republican voted for the draft when it was submitted previously it is likely President Bush will veto the measure the next time it comes up for a vote. It does not seem likely that the Democrats will be able to overcome a veto despite the calls to expand the war in Afghanistan and refusals to approve withdrawal from Iraq.
Of course, it remains to be seen whether the Democrats will bring to the table now what they called for under a Republican Congress.
Ray Robison is the proprietor of Ray Robison: Pointing Out the Obvious to the Oblivious, and an occasional contributor to American Thinker.
Ray Robison
Sorry, my husband served in the Marine Corps and I homeschool, so I'm busy. But I also don't offer to send other people's children into some sort of mandatory service.
Facts say otherwise.
http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/11/09/061109235649.5ga11arf.html
The US Army exceeded most of its recruiting and retention goals for October, the service said, even as it launched a new television and radio ad campaign dubbed "Army Strong."
The strong recruiting numbers were the latest sign that the army has managed to surmount difficulties of enlisting fresh troops in the middle of an unpopular war.
The army said it exceeded its monthly recruiting goal for the active duty army by eight percent, bringing in 5,560 new recruits.
The army's goal is to recruit 80,000 new soldiers in fiscal 2007, which began in October.
The army reserve was six percent short of its monthly recruiting goal, but the army national guard enlisted 21 percent more new soldiers than required.
Re-enlistments in October far surpassed the goals for the active army (30 percent), the reserve (14 percent) and the national guard (43 percent).
A new 200 million dollar army advertising campaign aired its first television commercials Thursday featuring the slogan "Army Strong," the army said.
No kidding. 1)to my understanding, the volunteer military is much better educated and prepared than was the draft-based military, 2) the anti-war, anti-military left didn't elect these people so their leftist kids would get drafted, 3) being the elitists that they are, will they bring back deferments for college kids? Short of alqaeda actually blowing up the WH, the draft is a dumb move all around.
Nothing is stopping your from volunteering. Just don't volunteer me or my kids.
Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
I think that pretty much puts the kibosh on any kind of "national service" requirement (except as a punishment for a crime).
There are brave men and women in all branches of the military who are not US citizens, and yet they serve in our military. This fast-tracks their goal of attaining citizenship. And those who die while serving, posthumously are granted citizenship.
However, my close friend who homeschools three and whose husband is currently in Afghanistan, finds time to do much volunteering at our church and the local nursing home. So I don't think you have a very good excuse. Take the children along with you to places to volunteer, they will enjoy it!
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." -Manuel II Paleologus
No, no, no.
You DON'T want the military sgt's and non-com's ""baby-sitting" their UNWILLINGLY PRESENT and resentful) draftees on a daily and hourly basis just to "rteach" the youth a lesson in life and "how to grow up by mopping floors and cleaning toilets and marching" ...
The FIGHTIGN military is NOT a school for "social growth" and socail workshops. I KNOW that is what happened you (and I) were in the military and went throug the hardships of the military.
Irrelevent.
We grew BECAUSE of the hardships BECAUSE we wanted a better military by our OWN actions. Our OWn decision to accept the hardships of the military. Forciong a person to go through those same hardships - espcially when there is NO REASON for the hardships (no WWII situation) - HURTS and creates a hatred for the military. (which may be why Rangel wants it!
He WANTS the military to be hated and resented for causing "me to sit here in the colds and rain because I was drafted" ......
You WANT your sgt's and non-com's TRAINING and improving their MILITARY ABILITY of the WILLING soldiers and sailors and airmen they lead.
You don't them distracted by millions of discipline activities and sabotage and bad actions.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." -Manuel II Paleologus
Good. We can steal the mind-numbed yoots vote when they turn on dims trying to institute the draft. Bush will Veto and become a hero to a new generation of spineless wimps too scared to serve!
All Voluteer Military is far higher in quality than what we had in the 60's and 70's... Today's Military are HEROES ALL!
LLS
What I'm talking about just started Wednesday--which is in November.
Enlistment? It would be my guess that the young warrior type volunteer that the arts & croissants liberal elitist crowds ridicule would be rather hesitant to sign on to serve under a bunch of "cut and runnists" prone, historically, to decimate the military (a la Jimmy Carter) and leave them holding the bag (a la Saigon, a la Clinton at Mogadishu), while they are shedding blood attempting to fight the terrorists on their own turf (a la the Middle East as opposed to here).
This A & C liberal elitist crowd headed up by the Armani pantsuit sans patriotic pin gal, Pelosi, are playing with fire if they think they can go back on their "campaign promises" to al Qaida to get out of Iraq and not be treated in a "brotherly" (sarcastic quote from al Qaida leader) fashion by the terrorists. They are about to reap the whirlwind if they think they can play footsie with terrorists and escape unpunished right here on American soil (personally - where it hurts).
Somebody Feel a Draft? The politics of fear & division...
various FR links | 09-29-04 | The Heavy Equipment Guy
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1230938/posts
I fixed them though. I joined the Navy.
That's all fine, but the original poster was talking about re-enlistment of people already in the service.
Boy, sounds like my 1sgt hubby wrote this...well said.
Ditto. The way I'd like to see it is everyone serves, either in the military or in some sort of volunteer organizations -- no lottery, no exemptions, and few deferments (for example, let someone who's in med school take a deferment until graduation, because he'll be more useful as a doctor). Offer enough incentives that enough folks will choose military service over the other options.
Yeah, you did say mandatory. And that is wonderful that your friend has chosen to do something she enjoys with her free time.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.