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
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!!
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.
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)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
...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??
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!
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.
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.
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.