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.
You can add former President Gerald Ford to that list. I remember seeing him on TV and he really ripped McNamara to pieces.
Honestly these people really do not know which end is up.
Except in times of deepest peril for the nation, and no other means of obtaining sufficient manpower, the draft should not be considered. It is involuntary servitude and contrary to the principles of a free society.
That said, there is no reason not to require military service as a qualification for holding office, for federal employment, or even for the franchise. Limiting full citizenship to those who served, whether in the military or in civilian equivilents, is a good idea: those who are not prepared to contribute to society, and consequently have a serious stake in it, should not be permitted to decide important questions for that society. Think Starship Troopers!
Except the dead ones, of course.
He returned to Harvard to finish up and was an All-East defensive back on their football club.
I don't think he was alone in his endeavor. Check your premises.
Better yet, go over to Harvard some day and check out the memorial to all the Harvard men who have fought and died for the United States.
Libertarians lose me whenever they use this argument.
According to the Militia Law all males between 17 and 45 are members of the Militia, whether organized (National Guard, etc) or unorganized (eg., the rest of us), therefore a draft is merely the calling up of the unorganized militia.
There is no BS about slavery, sir. It is the law and has been since pretty close to the beginning of the Republic.
Please tell me what military branch that Benjamin Franklin, John Adams and Thomas Jefferson served in.
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.