Bring back the draft – part II (Ellen Ratner's Advice For War She Hopes We Mess Up)

WorldNetDaily ^ | January 2, 2003 | Ellen Ratner

[PJ-Comix]

Loyal readers may remember last year's column calling for a return of the draft. Just to show that I wasn't quite howling in the wilderness, the same cause has now been publicly embraced by Rep. Charles Rangel, D-N.Y., who has promised to introduce new Selective Service legislation when Congress reconvenes.

Since my last column on the subject, the nature of the War on Terror has been clarified, and with it, my thoughts on mandatory service. I would like to take this opportunity to modify my original proposal along the lines of the reality now facing the country. During the last century, American wars were largely foreign affairs. Drafts raised armies and navies largely to serve abroad. World Wars I and II, Korea and Vietnam were the places men and women were sent to fight. Not since the Revolution, the War of 1812 or the Civil War has the country faced the necessity of doing battle on our own turf.

But wars have changed, and nothing dramatizes the shift better than the War on Terror. After 9-11, terrorists partially succeeded in shifting the battleground from foreign lands to our own country. They also succeeded in declaring that innocent civilians were now targets – that the enemy was not just an Abrams tank or a missile cruiser in the Persian Gulf, but a parent strolling with children, a stockbroker in a suit, a fireman, a secretary and an office janitor. As a result, what this country must do – and what the Bush administration has signally failed to inspire – is to prepare for "the common defense" at home. Accordingly, I stand by my original call for a return of the draft and would add the following:

1. Draftees would be given the option of serving in the military, but the emphasis would be on homeland security.

2. Draftees would serve for two-year stints, and would be given the choice of serving in the Coast Guard, Border Patrol, Port Security or Airport Security.

3. Draftees would also be given the option of doing mandatory two-year terms as rural and inner-city teachers, police, fire, hospital, national guard, EMT and other functions closer in definition to social rather than security functions.

It is patently ridiculous that a country of 280 million people is unable to properly inspect commercial traffic on our Mexican and Canadian borders; ridiculous that every container on a ship docking in U.S. ports can't be inspected; absurd that the Border Patrol and Immigration and Naturalization Service are unable to properly process people seeking entry into the country. The type of war our military will have to defend against is no longer the mega-division, combined-force conflict of Europe or Vietnam – it is, now, as Max Boot describes it, "small wars," in which compact, professional forces armed with high technology and first-class intelligence will do battle. Sure, the "enemy" may be some bio-weapons lab in the mountains of western Pakistan, but it is also the guy strolling through Times Square holding a suitcase filled with plutonium. In short, the battle is being (so far, badly) fought at airport security gates, port warehouses, bus terminals and border crossings – official and unofficial.

You don't have to be a conservative to know that any country whose people are unable to defend themselves doesn't deserve to be a country. So far the Bush administration has been waging a modern version of Lyndon Baines Johnson's Vietnam War, in which he promised a pain-free conflict of guns and butter. Nobody at home would have to sacrifice anything. We could fight a war in Vietnam with 500,000 troops, but at home, the party would just keep rolling. Well, it didn't work then, and – heaven forbid – it will only take another 9-11 disaster to prove that Bush's "keep shopping" approach to the War on Terror won't work now.

The country wants to be led, wants leadership that will do more to provide security than just a few well-televised "perp-walks" of olive-skinned terror suspects. What Bush is doing is selling motion for progress, but it won't wash. We need to put the country's young people to work – and that means all of them. No more phony, class-based deferments for college or divinity school. And in a world in which somebody sitting at a computer can wage war as effectively as an F-16 pilot, that also means no more exemptions for mild disabilities, sexual orientation, flat feet, bad breath, hair-loss or bad taste in ties. The Constitution says "for the common defense," and that means everybody but the certified dead.

If you want real security, don't crush civil rights. That's the lazy and stupid approach. Bush and Congress ought to be thinking smart – and that means providing for our own defense.

[PJ-Comix]

BLAH! BLAH! BLAH!

Hey Ellen! Why do you avoid explaining your comment last week stating that you hope the War on Terror messes up because that would hurt the re-election of Bush? Until you do, any "advice" you give about the war you hope messes up sounds kind of hollow.

[Arthur Wildfire! March]

I recommend we never go to war unless we are willing to send in the cub scouts and girl scouts.

[DWar]

I never thought I'd agree with Ratner on anything. But she's right about border security. Although I think her motive regarding reinstitution of the draft is to create a seed bed of potential discent.

[GiovannaNicoletta]

You don't have to be a conservative to know that any country whose people are unable to defend themselves doesn't deserve to be a country.

Does any country that would give Bill and Hillary Clinton the presidency twice deserve to be defended?

[Leisler]

A la the Lincoln Brigade from the Spanish Civil War, I recommend we form an entire Airborne Division of lefties, led by old commie professors and send them into the Afghan mountains.

[brooklin]

Do the draft, but kill Americorps.

[SMEDLEYBUTLER]

[G.Mason]

"I recommend we never go to war unless we are willing to send in the cub scouts and girl scouts."

Overruled.

[dighton]

Drafts raised armies and navies largely to serve abroad. World Wars I and II, Korea and Vietnam were the places men and women were sent to fight.

Oh, really?

[marty60]

in which he promised a pain-free conflict of guns and butter. Nobody at home would have to sacrifice anything.

Again the idiot lies. Bush has never said anything of the sort. At some point these Dumocrats must be fired for such blatant lying.

[marty60]

She is a liar and stupid to boot.

[FairOpinion]

"I recommend we never go to war unless we are willing to send in the cub scouts and girl scouts. "

-----
You got it! Of course you are being sarcastic, but that is exactly Ratner's and Rangel's point. Rangel admitted it on Hannity & Colmes openly, that his objective is political, in calling for the draft, hoping that people will decide that they don't want THEIR children to go to war and that it will generate some Vietnam style protests.

What Rangel & Ratner are NOT saying, and I haven't heard anyone ask them, is: "Do they think it's better for us to be sitting ducks, wait until we get attacked with WMD, then parents can watch their children die before their very eyes of radiation poisoning, smallpox, nerve gas, or whatever?"

They always try scare mongering about the consequences of going to war with Iraq, totally ignoring the even more terrible consequences if we do NOT go.

Do you remember that the liberals were predicting some 50,000 American soldiers killed in Desert Storm, thousands of body bags in Afghanistan for our troops and were terribly disappointed it didn't happen.

[archy]

She's in favor of conscription? No problem.

Draft her first....

-archy-/-

[johnny7]

The country wants to be led, wants leadership...

Ellen wants anybody but Bush! Hillary would be her favorite, but pretty-boy Edwards or blue-blood Kerry would suffice.

Ratner is a nazi/bitch on “roofies” and not a journalist.

She is a stupid, socialist American, elite Jewish female.

She would back Arafat over Israel!

[BigBobber]

Dear Ellen,

Slavery was outlawed in the 19th century. No matter what new name you put on it, even if it's for the children, mandatory government service is still slavery.

Libs think it's so great that private slavery was outlawed, but have absolutely no problem with state-run slavery. Disgusting.

[Tailback]

This is a re-post of a previous reply to the same subject.

The military is not too small, it is too spread out. There is no reason to have troops in former Yugoslavia, let the EU take care of that. There is no reason to have so many Army units in Germany and other European countries. All you need is forward staging bases for equipment and some Air Force bases. The equipment staging bases can be run with very few soldiers and some local contracted civilians. In Germany for example you could close every single Army base except Hohenfels, Grafenwoer, Vilseck, (all maneuver and artillery training areas) and then keep the staging bases. That still allows joint maneuver training with NATO allies in Europe, while bringing home 10's of thousands of US soldiers. South Korea doesn't need huge amounts of US soldiers to defend their country with. The ROK military is extremely capable, much more so than the North. With the US Air Force, US special ops, US satellites, and US technology, any incursion by the North would be a complete bloodbath for the North. We need a highly trained, self-motivated military, not a gaggle of 24 month cannon fodder.

[martian_22]

The commies advocating a return to a draft are scum due to their motives.

Their objective is to fuel anti-war demonstrations(against the draft) to divide Americans, for a while.

They seek de-moralization to break the unified will of Americans at war thereby giving our enemies more advantage.

They claim patriotism but one only need begin peeling layers....

[truth_seeker]

"We need a highly trained, self-motivated military, not a gaggle of 24 month cannon fodder."

I was a 24 month soldier, conscripted. I was highly trained, alongside the volunteers. I was self-motivated to stay alive.

I think that during WWII, Korea and Vietnam many folks that you would label "gaggle" served well, and many died for the cause.

I didn't ovserve that the careerists ("lifers"), the short term volunteers, and the draftees had any particular differences in skill or performance.

As I reflect, the fact that I served in the US military at all, is an important part of my life and makeup. It made me a more proud and grateful citizen, more conservative.

Maybe if Clinton had served, he wouldn't have "despised" the military.

[Tailback]

The training period to become qualified for many Air Force and Army (enlisted) professions is up to 18 months. (or more) That means for a 24 month draftee you have 6 months after being trained left on your enlistment. I have not or will not criticize men that answered the call to serve our country, but the military is no longer like the military was prior to the 1980's, that is a simple fact that cannot be argued. If it ever became necessary to become involved in a large scale land war, the draft could be brought back for infantry, armor, and artillery type personnel who could be fully trained in 4-5 months.

[truth_seeker]

I don't disagree with you, about training times, and the nature of present day military missions, skills, tactics, etc.

I do object to describing fellow Americans, as "gaggle." I lost a very close friend, who lasted eleven months in Vietnam, as a helicopter gunner.

If this long world epoch war against islamism requires the draft, I expect many will be sent into harms way, with training times of six months or less, as before.