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
<< .... if we needed a draft .... >>
Moot. There are still sufficient young Americans, may God bless them all, with the integrity, the courage and the resolve to voluntarily defend our nation.
Rather than a Draft, remobilize Charley Rangel and Marine corporal Murrerfurra, perhaps and -- the inability of each of them to ever shape up a forgone conclusion -- ship both out to patrol and police Tikrit's spider holes and Baghdad's airport road.
Not so fast...watch what happens to enlistments after this election #1, and #2 after people figure out what Bob Gates agenda will be.
We lost the Civil War? WW I? WW II? Korea? VN? "manpower management" my butt. Rasing the troops necessary has always relied on a draft, up until the recent all-volunteer force. We will now see if the volunteer army can meet its requirements, under adverse circumstances, really, for the first time.
There's the rub. It works pretty well in Switzerland, but we are not Swiss.
I'm not worried about drafting fit young men, I know the army and marines can turn them into good troops, but the country has changed since the Vietnam war, now the draft would not be used to serve the needs of the army and marines, but instead would be used to convert the military into a new culture, also there would be a non-draft, draft, for those that don't want to, or can't go into the army or marines. The non-draft options would be used to indoctrinate the young, and to mostly serve the wants of the left.
Social engineering seems to be the goal of most new "national service" programs.
They told me it would take three years to get over it. It was a lie. I never will.
Yeah. Mine are both up there in years, I doubt very seriously I'll be able to for much longer.
I know it never goes away, but I'm given to understand that it becomes more tolerable with time.
What's all fine? The entire military isn't going to be adversely affected by leaders who historically and notoriously cut funding for the military and then cut and run - generally after initiating their deployment in the first place (though in this case, Bush had the guts to deal with Hussein's regime even if a decade late)? Hussein WAS a weapon of mass destruction, incidentally. Now, of course, Al Quaeda and the world is just gonna love us and we can all eat crossants, drink tea and view inspiring Islamic art at the Center for Tolerance & Enlightenment.
...and how many of your buddies were helicopter pilots....???
and how many of your buddies were helicopter pilots that could have made that observation???
Your comments were all fine, but they were peripheral to the discussion here.
That's right. Nancy Pelosi says we are not in a war, it is just a "situation".
Germaine, as they're likely to have to initiate a draft if they alienate the military the way liberals usually tend to do. Of course, Democrats just like to lay the groundwork that necessitates someone else having to deal with their little foreign policy messes (a la Al Qaeda, N. Korea, and Iran) after they leave office. Iran - Carter's legacy. Al Qaeda & N. Korea - Clinton's legacy.
You'll have to wait until Nov. 30 to get the numbers for this month.
Draft Jeb Bush's clown son George "P" Bush, who seems to have spent these 5 years of wartime rallying illegal aliens and denouncing the U.S. Border Patrol.
Slave armies are a very bad idea in general. As far as giving something back, it's called taxation.
Want more people to go to war? Bring back prize taking and looting rights.
Not even the Dems would do this - because it would be political suicide - even if enlistment declines catastrophically.
If there were a draft (for a continuing Iraq war), would I dodge it? If I decided not to dodge it, the reason would be spite. All of my relatives would be completely horrified - they would rather see me spend the rest of my life in cold, empty Canada.
He should bring his junkie sister Noelle. She could use the excitement.
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.