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
Voluntary anything is abhorred by the dimocommiecrats. Anything that isn't shoved down your throat by big Government, gives you too much control over your life.
Hear, hear!
The drafted armed forces were a terrible handicap to any serious military endevour.
Thank you for your service and your post.
Th Confederacy was the first to reach for the draft--because they needed to in order to raise the bodies--and they lost.
And you really cannot call WW1 a win. It was like Desert Storm--it ended short of victory, and all we did was put off a day of reckoning.
Part of the problem, the media and popular culture in general have worked the citizenry over so bad, the very idea of a draft is unthinkable, and not just politically. I know, because I was once young and stupid, and when dad suggested the military I thought it was a crazy idea. "They brainwash you, Dad.."
After I joined, I got out and went to University on the GI Bill. I rapidly figured out who was really "brainwashed" - civilians. I said nuts to the University - and went back in the .mil, there was a truly "multi-cultural" society - where competence is rewarded, not punished, and those beneficial traditions of duty, honor, country, etc - are upheld.
I tried to join, was turned down for crappy hearing ('Boy, you're too deaf to fire artillery or drive a tank") I would love to serve, even at a somewhat corpulent 45 years old (I'd give ANYTHING to fly a chopper), but I would NOT want a draftee covering my six!
But like I said above, I am not for a draft per sey....but I do think that it is a discussion worth having.
Two years of communications not being monitored for fear of violating a jihadi's privacy, two years of Iraq turning into a jihadi gangsta paradise (the House leadership is utterly unyielding on this point, we WILL be bugging out of Iraq), two years of ham-stringing Bush's efforts to deal withg North Korea and Iran...
A lot can happen in two years, except for one thing: another election.
The north had a draft and won, WWI had a draft and 99% of the world knows we won, WWII had a draft and we damn sure won. You can't back up your incorrect statement by rewriting history. Please go spin your "logic" elsewhere.
One suggestion I might make is that any service obligation (not military of course) be part of the requirements for graduation from high school (as it was at the high school my kids graduated from). In that case you are not delaying someone's dreams and aspirations.
I didn't realize it was to load-balance the different services. I did know that it was for when you GOT to go, not when you HAD to. A long-ago boyfriend's father told me he had been about a quarter-inch too short for the height requirement in WWII, so he slept with weights on his ankles, over the end of his bed, before going to the recruiting center. The walk there shortened him back down, so the next day, after sleeping with the weights again, he had four friends carry him. He served in Italy and had brought back an Italian machine gun as a souvenir. When possession of the gun became illegal, he sawed it in half and made bookends out of it.
(I'd give ANYTHING to fly a chopper),
Yeah. It gets in your blood.
"Robert Heinlein is an idiot? LOL!! I see your point, but, please."
Whoever said that made an idiotic statement. Maybe that is a better way to say it.
"Part of the problem, the media and popular culture in general have worked the citizenry over so bad, the very idea of a draft is unthinkable, and not just politically. I know, because I was once young and stupid, and when dad suggested the military I thought it was a crazy idea. "They brainwash you, Dad.."
After I joined, I got out and went to University on the GI Bill. I rapidly figured out who was really "brainwashed" - civilians. I said nuts to the University - and went back in the .mil,"
LOL, I didn't believe in the draft either, I fought it, won my permanent deferment, then I enlisted in the army.
Increasing the size of the Army would have been nice too!
1. The North didn't need the draft to win. The South needed the draft just to have an army after 1862.
2. 99% of the world is wrong. We didn't win. We just didn't lose, and that's not the same thing as winning. And we could have done a call for volunteers without conscription and still raised the army needed to win--we could've invaded Germany, but wimped out. So the draft was unnecessary, and did not give us victory.
3. Did you read my comment carefully? In WW2, the draft was not a means for acquiring bodies, it was a means for MANAGING the flow of those bodies. The draft was superfluous, and the manpower management issue could've been solved without conscription.
4. Please learn how to read. My comment was that if you need a draft just to get the bodies, you're losing anyway.
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.