Posted on 01/25/2003 7:05:47 PM PST by mhking
To: National Desk, National and Black Affairs Reporters
Contact: David Almasi (202) 371-1400 x106 or dalmasi@nationalcenter.org
For Release: January 24
A proposal by Congressman Charles Rangel (D-NY) to reinstate a military draft is under fire from African-American conservatives affiliated with the Project 21 leadership network. Project 21 members call the Rangel proposal a blatant political maneuver meant to inject a divisive racial aspect into the debate over using military force to remove Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein.
"Ironic as it may sound, bringing back the draft would be a good sign for those who seek to destroy us because it would be a sign of strategic weakness," said Project 21 member Captain A.A. Warthen, an active-duty U.S. Marine. "The Rangel proposal ignores the obvious social attitudes that have taken place over the past 25 years with regard to public service. The young men and women serving today are the best-educated and trained generation of warriors this nation has ever produced. We are more than ready to meet the challenges that lay ahead in the defense of this nation."
Rangel's proposal would require all men and women between the ages of 18 and 26 to perform military service. Those who do not qualify for the military would perform community service. Rangel's statement that he seeks a "more equitable representation of people making sacrifices" indicates the plan is inspired by racial politics rather than strategic need.
Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld says of the draft, "There is no need for it at all."
Department of Defense figures dispute the claim by Rangel plan supporters that minorities would suffer a disproportionate number of frontline casualties in an Iraqi conflict. While 20 percent of soldiers are African-American, only 10.6 percent of the Army's combat infantry is black. Black personnel also are underrepresented as pilots and in high-risk commando units.
Military sociologist Charles Moskos told USA Today: "If anybody should be complaining about battlefield deaths, it is poor, rural whites." As for the class disparity, Hoover Institution research fellow Stanley Kurtz points out that liberal opposition to JROTC and ROTC presence in high schools and colleges since the Vietnam era has led to fewer college graduates considering the military as a career option.
A 1997 survey of 76,000 servicemen found that minority soldiers had an overwhelmingly positive view of race relations in the military. Over one-third believed conditions in the military were better than in the civilian world. Good race relations are an important factor in ensuring troops' combat readiness.
Project 21 member Kevin Martin, a U.S. Navy veteran, added: "Congressman Rangel has sunk to a new low in trying to say that a draft is the only way to bring equality to the military. Study after study has shown that whatever information he has is as faulty as his argument."
Project 21 has been a leading voice of the African-American community since 1992. For more information, contact David Almasi at (202) 371-1400 x106 or Project21@nationalcenter.org, or visit Project 21's web site at http://www.nationalcenter.org/P21Index.html.
-- 30 --
Without a constant inflow and outflow of (otherwise) civilians in the military we run the real danger of a standing army with more loyalty to itself than to the people. IMO, a profesesional army is not a good thing.
Until about a month ago, most conservatives celebrated WWII's conscripted "citizen soldiers." Then Rangel tried his maneuver, and all of a sudden, the GOP talking points changed.
Top Ten Reasons Rangel (and other liberals) Want to Bring Back the Draft:
1) Promotes the herd mentality among young people (a continuation of the 12 years of institutionalization in the public school system).
2) Replaces the spirit of volunteerism, opportunity and patriotism with compulsory service to the gov't (a liberals's dream!)
3) Allows the gov't to register and track every male (females too?) and to manipulate all young adults with the promise of civilian alternative service or an exemption.
4) Creates a vast new gov't bureaucracy with the 'universal civilian service' component. All Americans would begin their careers working for the govt' for 2 or 3 years.
5) Promotes the myth of equal treatment yet creates a system inevitably rife with unequal treatment and corruption, exemptions and ruses. Bound to create more hostility between races and income groups.
6> Fans the flames of anti-war feeling, by threatening compulsory service for those opposed to war or a particular war (whether by sincere conscience or because they are &*%##!!* commies!)
7) Makes local Congressmen (like Rep. Rangel) more powerful, as they can barter cushy civilian sector service jobs for sons and daughters of their friends/contributors.
8> Our military is currently based on professionalism -- starting only with the most motivated (volunteers), then paring this group down to those most phsically and mentally fit for the toughest combat assignments. A universal draft would stand this policy on its head.
9) Chelsea could launch her public service career by serving as head of the new CCAHCAMLOTSMG (Civilian Corps for the Abatement of Hate Crimes and Monitoring of Language Offensive To Selected Minority Groups). She'll get full military rank, live Sgt. Shriver, that other Kennedy friend.
10) It would bring back the 60's!! (Where'd I put my green tambourine, dude?)
Let me guess, Libertarians for Peace?
BTW, your home page sure doesn't give any indication of what you believe or how you've been 'defending the constitution. Not very proud of it?
I was totally unaware of the draftees. The lax rules allowing criminals and such to serve was, IMO, a way to make up for the loss of draft pool that the student deferments (of the influential class) caused. A draft should be universal, not selective, to be effective. Even most of the 'physically unfit' should be requried to serve (one of my high schools football stars, an all around athlete, was considered physically unfit and got a 4F).
Back to my original point: I think four to six months at MCRD San Diego or MCRD Parris Island would be a good experience for all 18 year olds.
I agree about universal military training for all men in the country. It would, IMO, cure most of the social woes we seem to be suffering. I'm not sure the Marines should have to put up with them though. They're a pretty exclusive service. The general population mixing with the Marines would quite likely end up lowreing the standards of that service.
LOL. BTW, how did we ever win WWI & WWII, with a lousy conscript military?
My problem is people who make personal attacks and flames instead of an intelligent reply, people who seem to do nothing except call names and make slanders against myself (or anyone else) who expresses an opinion they disagree with. I feel this happened in post #19 (I assume that you are inteligent enough to have read the string of posts). Yes, I do have a problem with those who make personal slanders against the messenger when they cannot reply intelligently to the message. This is, of course, exactly the favorite tactic of liberals that most of us like to criticize so much. Particularly when that message was deliberately expressed as a personal opinion, not as some kind of fact. Might I remind you that the posting guidlines explicitly state "...but refrain from abusive attacks, engaging in senseless flame wars, ..." which is what If find " I don't have to take that cr*p from some snivelling liberal/socialist/communist/terrorist like possibly you!!!! " to be. I might add that those would also be legally considered as 'fighting words' if expresssed in person.
If you don't like what I say then maybe you should consider the spirit of the posts in #32 & #35 by Defender2 (both reasoned and acceptable disagreement with my opinion which does not attack me personally or call me any deragotory terms) and his #19 (which can hardly be viewed as anything but an unwarranted personal attack and a flame). IMO, Defender2 redeemed himself well in both #32 & #35, not at all like the attack in #19.
Are we all supposed to march in lock-step with the same opinion?
Well, not IMO, but it seems to be what you are demanding here. In lockstep with your opinion of course.
Happens to the best of us. Your later posts spoke well of you. Best wishes.
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.