Yep, really looks like minorities are the bulk of those fighting in Iraq.
Posted on 07/21/2007 8:09:57 AM PDT by Turret Gunner A20
The Congressional Budget Office has released a major study#[1] of the U.S. military's demographics under an all-volunteer framework versus the draft. The idea of reinstating the draft was a hot-button issue last November when Congressman Charlie Rangel (D-NY), a leader and committee chairman in the newly elected Democratic majority, vocalized his intent to once again make conscription the law of land. Called on by Congress to assess the matter, CBO offered new findings, which dispassionately deflate the notion that America's All-Volunteer Force (AVF) is inferior to a conscripted force by any measure: effectiveness, cost, troop quality, retention, morale, and even social fairness.
Rising Levels of Concern
Last autumn, Senator John Kerry (D-MA) commented to college students in California that without doing your homework, "you get stuck in Iraq." It created a media circus, with Senator Kerry getting blame for what has in reality been a long-standing belief that military enlistees are a lower quality group than the civilian population, though often couched in softer socioeconomic terms. Five years ago, Representative Rangel wrote that a "disproportionate number of the poor and members of minority groups make up the enlisted ranks of the military." The stereotype was given another boost by Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11. One notorious scene tracked Marine recruiters, with Moore's overtone: "Where would [the military] find the new recruits? They would find them all across America in the places that had been destroyed by the economy. Places where one of the only jobs available was to join the Army." The stereotype entered the mainstream in a front-page Washington Post article on November 4, 2005 ....
(Excerpt) Read more at heritage.org ...
As any trainer can tell you motivation is one of the key factors of how successful a person will be in any given task. A Volunteer has all ready mentally made a commitment that the coerced will NEVER have.
The ONLY people who think this is a good idea are senile old fools like Rangle.
This will go right over the head of the liberals -- as usual.
“Bo knows football.”
Characterizing Rangle as a senile old fool is not wrong.
But that's not why he (and others) push for conscription. The desire is three-fold:
1) Weaken our military (we're the biggest problem in the world -- we need to be taken down a peg).
2) Weaken George Bush (the war is his fault. The draft would make the war -- and Bush -- less popular).
3) Bring back 1960's style demonstrations. The Days of Rage were a high-point of the Boomer's childhood. They want to go back to that.
Rangel is a smart guy, but still a devious rat. He said what he did for political reasons, not because he believed it was true.
4. Indoctrinate the youth into the new socialist world.
Liberals always include a civilian make work alternative to military service in their draft schemes. The state stealing two years of an 18 year old’s life teaches the valuable lesson of who is really in charge.
“...Thanks to the CBO, Congress is more likely to agree that these men and women should not be replaced by conscripts.”
Are we to believe the current Democrat lead Congress would actually read the report much less respect the conclusions?
Democrats don’t want to know the truth, it muddles up their agenda.
I am a total supporter of the All Volunteer force. If someone like Rangle made the argument that a draft would increase the number of manly men who understand the meaning of patriotism, they might have a defensible arguement. A friend of mine knew a French Army officer who said that what the draft did for France (historically).
But Rangel would never make that arguement.
He doesn’t recognize how much better soldiers are performing in Bush’s Army than in Truman’s miserable Army full of draftees.
And doggies in Bush’s Army are getting more respect from the Marines.
I should know, I was one of Truman’s poorly trained doggies.
I would like to know whjere you got tht -- I about as 'older' a vet as they come (WW II vintage), and I haven't run across many vets who think that.
I would like to know whjere you got that.
You are absolutely correct. Rangel even voted against his own proposal when it came up in the House!
I believe a draft army is, at this time in history, inefficient, but I see signs that others in gov’t, not just Dums, are moving in that direction. The latest ads for the Army state that $50K for college can be had for a commitment of 2 (TWO) years plus training. This is a drop in service time to about 32months. If this becomes the standard then one of the benfits of the volunteer Army, a trained long term force will go by the wayside. Could a draft be far behind.
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.