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.
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.
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.
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.