First Order of Business for Democrats: The Draft

The American Thinker ^ | November 10th, 2006 | Ray Robison

[RVN Airplane Driver]

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

Then how was it that the draft was in place until the early '70's.....with your attitude of Just don't volunteer me or my kids. is typical of my old tag line..."Americans are so spoiled with freedom they have no idea what it took to get it or what it takes to maintain it" Frankly your attitude is a slap in the face to all who serve or have served!!

[HitmanLV]

My point is primarily that the dems just won an election. They are not the CiC, and frankly no closer to the CiC in 2008.

The low threshold for pain on FR is startling. You win some, you lose some. We won't be leaving Iraq in the next 3 months or 6 months.

What mature, clear thinking individual in the service (or on FR for that matter) seriously though the dems would never win an election again?

Nellies.

[ghostkatz]

Your tagline sums it up, but w/ Al Qeda it doesn't matter if you keep your promises becuz with AQ it is always "or else" You are right about potential enlistees not wanting to serve under A & C crowd.(such as serving scones and tea during Clinton Regime)

[Freedom4US]

One of the prospective original Astronauts was about a 1/4 to 1/2 inch too short according to the regs. Pilots in general are used to being poked and prodded, and measured. But how to overcome this deficiency? On the day of his physical, he took a hammer to the top of his several times, hard. He passed.

[woodbutcher]

I read some time ago that Rangle's idea was that if every mother and dad thought their kids were all subject to the draft, they would immediately vote against anyone who had anything to do with the Iraq war.

In other words, get Bush and Rummy.

But there is a real catch to this.

The dims will cut the military budget.

So we draft 3 million or so hungry kids that all have to be sheltered and clothed....who is going to pay for it?

The dims sure are not.

As for compulsory service, every number that has been published shows the re-up rate is the highest it has ever been.

As for everyone doing something in the way of public service: Fine. Move to one of those country's where every so often the soldiers round you up for a road building project.

They call that socialism and communism.

We are supposed to be the party of less government, smaller government and less spending.

How does "compulsory" fit into any of the above?

Much smarter if you need more people to raise the benefits, whether that is pay, zero interest home loans to the returning service person or whatever.

One more point. In all previous wars, what we needed was bodies. What amounted to cannon fodder.

Today we need really smart people who want to make if not a career, at least a second career out of the military. With all due respects to the great people in our history, it takes more to fight today that the ability to carry an M-1 and look down a set of iron sights.

The problem today is not with the young people that sign up. The problem is with the people like Kennedy, Kerry, Murtha, etc.

You can not say that you are a conservative, for smaller government, less spending and in the same breath say that you will put every single 18 year old into government service for two years.

How many 18 year olds do we have today?

The Census says that our birth rate is 14.4 per 1,000. Male and female.

Quick and dirty math looks like 4,200,000 born each year.

So ignore the death rate and guess that 85% are able to pass the physical to do something even if not in the military, and you end up with 3,570,000 EACH and EVERY year that must be given a physical, and then fed and clothed, furnished with whatever equipment they need to train or do their socialist thing...

And the dims are going to pay for that??

And that is small government?

It will never fly.

[meyer]

There is already national service of this nature introduced by President Clinton. I agreed with it at the time and still support it. Our young people should give something back to their country.

The entire notion of "giving something back to the country" is a bunch of socialist BS. The government serves the people, not the other way around.

[Aikonaa]

Why the HELL does Anybody "want" the draft?

The military is a bastion of conservatism and common sense. The Left wants to wreck the military by forcing unmotivated and unwilling people to the service.

[river rat]

Amen...

The military is NOT for socializing the idiots that our society, public school systems and ghettos produce in vast numbers....

The military is for DEDICATED, PURPOSEFUL PATRIOTS to break things and kill people..

What is needed is a GOVERNMENT with the balls to WIN a war they send our young warriors to fight..

You don't need a lot of "boots on the ground" as the Leftists have been spouting......if first you reduce the enemy's homes and sanctuaries to a single level of rubble BEFORE you send the grunts in...

We tried to create "free Democracies' in a land inhabited by lunatics who despise us -- what the hell did we expect?

We didn't kill enough or demonstrate our ability to destroy or kill enough to earn their fear and respect - FIRST.

Once again -- America has slaughtered her own in a fool's venture..

Semper Fi

[f zero]

Charles Rangel did not even vote for his own bill. My former Congressman, Elijah E. Cummings D-MD (Black congressional caucus chair at the time) was a co-sponsor. He also did not vote for the bill. It was great to see him squirm when asked about it at a debate in 2004 against Tony Salazar.

[farlander]

That is absolutely correct.

In a modern military, such as ours, it's impossible to properly train and educate a 1-2 year involuntary draftee to be effective. It takes that long to train a fully functioning member of our high-tech, advanced tactics/doctrine forces.

Any talk of the draft is just hot air. If they want to increase the size of the military, offer more incentives (money) and pay (money). It's a simple equation. More money, more military.

[RetiredArmy]

Let's see. The dims whine, moan and groan that only the "poor" and "those down on their luck" get drafted. ARE they going to require EVERYONE at age 19, 20, etc. to go into the military like Europeans did? Great. Just what we need. Homosexuals, those who do not want to be there who will turn the military into a joke. Right. Sure. It it did not work in the 60s and 70s. The military was terrible. I know. I was in it. Draftees are not good soldiers. They do not want to be there. They will shirk their duties. They will do anything to get kicked out because they do not want to be there. Professional soldiers will waste valuable time and money trying to train these misfits.

[P-Marlowe]

Then how was it that the draft was in place until the early '70's

That's a good question. But since involutary service in the military for purposes of combat in a time of war is based on historical precedent and since it was not specifically and separately prohibited in the 13th amendment, then it could be interpreted as not being intended to be included in the 13th amendment.

OTOH, there is no historical precedent for any kind of "national service". This is a modern socialistic idea with no historical foundation. Therefore it is exactly the kind of "involuntary servitude" that the 13th amendment was intended to prohibit. Drafting men to protect the nation in a time of war is one thing. Forcing people to perform community service in peacetime is another thing entirely (except as a punishment for a crime).

[woodbutcher]

I forgot to add that at the end of the second year and forever after that you would have 7,000,000 or so to feed, clothe and train and equip with humvees, weapons, etc., most of which would hopefully never be used.

Neither dims nor repubs will support this, although for different reasons.

[RVN Airplane Driver]

I find one glaring oversight in your argument So we draft 3 million or so hungry kids that all have to be sheltered and clothed....who is going to pay for it?

...and my tax dollars are not doing it now??? Hell we're still taking care of South Louisiana and part of South Mississisipi...and 3 million????? Where did that number come from??

[P-Marlowe]

Frankly your attitude is a slap in the face to all who serve or have served!!

Oh, gosh I didn't see that little dig until after I'd politely answered your question.

I take it then that you are in favor of drafting people to force them into such service organizations as "Habitat for Humanity" or "the Peace corps" or "Greenpeace" and that anyone who opposes such mandatory enslavement to the cause of political correctness is somehow "slapping the face of the military?"

Take a hike!

[Peach]

Here is some information published in a letter to the editor I wrote:

1) Rangel has publicly admitted the bill has no chance to succeed.

2) Rangel has introduced this legislation twice and it was defeated each time; two years ago the House rejected the legislation in a 402-2 vote.

3) The first time Rangel's legislation came up for a vote, he voted against his own legislation.

4) Members of the Congressional Black Caucus and Rangel are using this stunt to protest the war. They've complained that black are being used as cannon fodder in the war.

But when confronted with the fact that only 5% of the troops in Iraq are black while 14% of the US population is Black, they refuse to back down from their lies.

5) Sid Francis, an African-American and former Marine intelligence officer, said of Rangel and this legislation: "This is vintage Rangel. He's adept at distortion and his proposed draft bill isn't meant to improve the military but to create a Vietnam-era military of draftees. Anyone who knows anything about the military knows that conscriptions brings about negative results."

[ANGGAPO]

Well, I will tell you what to expect if he does enlist. He will return as a Republican because he will realize that the only thing that keeps our country safe is a powerful military staffed with dedicated men. Freedom is not free.

[Gaffer]

Were you ever in the military when it had a draft? I was. During WWII and before, the draft consisted of ordinary citizens who were motivated and came from across the spectrum of citizenry. I can remember in 1968-1976 what it was like and, to a large part, it wasn't the fine group of motivated professionals we have today. There is no comparison at all. The problem can get so bad with unmotivated soldiers that it affects the whole unit. If the US military today were to become infected (through a draft)with some of the likes of our 'citizens' today, disaster would certainly follow.

[gridlock]

This article ignores the obvious, which is that all the posturing about the draft by Mutha and Rangel was purely political, and actually instituting the draft was never part of their plan.

They are not going to let a silly thing like consistency require them to pursue the draft now.