Posted on 01/05/2003 3:09:31 PM PST by Jean S
IN PURSUIT of making the U.S. military "look like America," liberal New York City congressman Charlie Rangel (D) is pushing Washington to bring back the draft.
He thinks America's military relies too heavily on poor and minority soldiers, and that well-off whites are underrepresented when America goes to war, as it might soon against Iraq. He wants to see more whites and upper-middle class soldiers, so the risk of death in war is more evenly distributed throughout society. Rangel is taking this logic so far that he wants to draft women, too.
"What we're contemplating is a new draft that would include women and men," George Dalley, Rangel's top Washington staffer, explained to me on Thursday. "Women and men would be treated equally in that regard." What a shame that equality, and not military effectiveness, is Rangel's objective. A draft is only justified if more men — and Heaven forbid, more women — are needed to defend America from attack.
Forcing 18-year-old women into military service just to spread out the risks of war is an odious idea. It's certainly the death knell of a civilized, chivalrous society, not to mention a very expensive undertaking for the taxpayer, considering the extra physical training and accommodations young women would require.
But as gut-churning as the idea of drafting women is, Rangel's idea deserves credit for being logically consistent. He virtually confesses his primary reason for wanting a draft is not so that America can have the finest, most elite fighting force in the world — as it now does thanks to its highly motivated, all-volunteer personnel (men and women both). His primary reason for introducing a draft is social engineering — the manipulation of equality.
In a Dec. 31 New York Times op-ed piece, Rangel plainly states: "Throughout much of our history, Americans have been asked to shoulder the burden of war equally. That's why I will ask Congress next week to consider and support legislation I will introduce to resume the military draft." (Dalley admits that "resume" is an "inaccurate" descriptor, as Rangel's conscription of women makes this a different draft from the draft that ended in 1973.)
Rangel himself was a black inner city youth who served in the Army and was decorated in the Korean War. He became a well-known congressman from Harlem and is now the top-ranking Democrat on the powerful House Ways and Means Committee, which writes U.S. tax law.
As a veteran, Rangel should understand that people who want to be in the military perform much better than people who are conscripted. And having seen combat, Rangel, of all people, should realize that only a special minority of girls is physically and emotionally steeled enough to serve in a military that is serious about its objective: killing our enemies before they kill us.
Rangel is right that Americans need to consider the body bag-factor in war: that many sons and daughters in military service will not return home alive when politicians send them to war in complex, far away places such as Iraq. But what serious, moral nation crafts its defense policy by measuring the bank accounts and skin pigmentation of the heroes and heroines who come home slumbering under the flag?
The most moral thing a country can do in war time is to invite its most motivated people to step forward: rich or poor, black or white, male or female. These volunteers will perform the best and keep American casualties to a minimum.
It may be the case that most of these volunteers happen to be male, minorities, or of modest means. But America's aim, and Charlie Rangel's objective, ought to be to limit the number of body bags returning from war. It certainly shouldn't be to distribute those body bags equally among blacks and whites, rich and poor, and boys and girls. That kind of logic only leads to more body bags.
Bernadette Malone is the former editorial page editor.
"The man is holdin' us back. We gots to get some common ground with the crackers."
Rangel...another worthless liberal scum.
That statement by the author and many here on FR is one of the most ridiculous statements ever heard.
Having served with both, I never saw any difference.
He is trying to connect Bush, War, and Draft so that people will be more inclined to fight the President on this issue (and other issues, too.)
He doesn't want a draft. He just wants to ding the Prez.
Too many men in this country have already come of age with no experience of military service which leaves some with a lack of respect for military service, or understanding of the necessity for a strong military. Look at Congress, not to mention Clinton.
I understand the libertarian objection to enforced military service, but I think the experience does a lot for most young men who go through it.
However, the idea of drafting women is just insane; no military on earth needs that many women.
Related thread:
How would it "not be fair"? We women have the babies, Bernard (roughly during the timeframe in which you want to draft us) is that "fair"? No, but it's reality. Jeesh.
No, he doesn't want to see a draft. He wants people talking about a draft.
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.