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.
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.
This guy is not interested in an effective, for the right reason, draft the plain and simple fact is he wants as many dead rich white boys as he feels there are dead poor black boys.(Shades of Ellen Ratner)
This guy is a certifiable nut case and must be treated for what he is, and that is he's blinded by a severe case of "galloping" class envy.
Outrageously stupid, but still par for the course the liberals are playing!
IMHO it doesn't make a difference if the force is made up of volunteers or not.
WHAT does matter is the leadership in the units.
In the early 70's I was assigned to units that were a mix of both and they were squared away because they had leaders who took care of them.
In the 80's I was assigned to units that the soldiers were there because they voluntarily signed on the dotted line. The leadership was sorry and as a result these units were mucked up like a dripping soup sandwich.
That was true whe the draft was run by the Selective Service method – Draft Quotas were assigned to each district (VERY selectively) and the local Draft Board selected (again, VERY selectively) who was to serve, and who was deferred.
When the Draft was changed to the Lottery System by birthdate – and the sons of the elite were sometimes selected – the end of both the Vietnam War and the Draft were imminent.
Believe me, I think everyone ought to serve, as I did (2 years active, 6 reserve). What I object to, conceptually, is coerced service. The society whose members are unwilling to defend it does not deserve to stand against its enemies. That's why I like the idea of using military or equivilent national service as a qualification for full citizenship rights.
Your other post re Jefferson, Adams and Franklin is not apposite. In their time, there were other limitations on the franchise that ensured that only those with a significant stake in society voted. Each of them, as signers of the Declaration of Independence, placed their lives and property in peril for the sake of the country every bit as surely as if they had led regiments in the Continental Line. The point of using military or other service as a qualification is to ensure that each person who votes has demonstrated his or her willingness to place his or her life and property on the line for the country.
Commie Charlie "Mr. Almost Conservative"???
BWAAAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
Its the usual argument: minorities did "all the fighting and dying in Vietnam because of the draft". Not true; minority men and women fought valiantly, but blacks were 13.5 percent of the men eligible to serve but 12.0 percent of the KIAs in Vietnam.The irony of the 60s "anti-draft" movement is it really wasn't anti-draft. It was anti-military. It used the draft as a recruiting tool to suck people into their leftist agenda.
Had the "anti-draft" movement been willing to make common cause with the conservatives who opposed the draft (Goldwater, YAF, Heinlein, etc.) conscription would likely have ended long before it did.
-Eric
A universal draft would be more acceptable if our damn schools would teach just what civic duty consists of instead of teaching what one can get from the system.
I'm totally for the franchise being only invested in literate property owners, as originally conceived by those wiser than the courts that declared otherwise.
In Liberty.
Hmmm. I am not so sure that state schools should be indoctrinating civic duty. Hear me out. In the 18th and 19th centuries, when civic virtue was at its highest in this country, as in the glory days of the Roman republic before Sulla, Caesar and the empire, schools were primarily private, and taught the classics. Senses of civic virtue and civic duty were inculcated not by the state, but by families and other citizens who commanded sufficient respect that some entrusted their children to them. And by the Churches, of course, but religious liberty and tolerance (if not full acceptance) has been an ideal (if not always a perfect practice) in the English-speaking world since the end of Bloody Mary's time. So, I am skeptical of state schools indoctrinating civic virtue, it smacks of Prussia or 19th century France, or worse, communist or fascist regimes.
I'm totally for the franchise being only invested in literate property owners, as originally conceived by those wiser than the courts that declared otherwise.
Well, I don't disagree with the concept of limits on the franchise based on property and educational qualifications, although I think them unlikely of every being accepted. I actually think a military/civilian service requirement for the frachise would be more broadly acceptable to society, since everyone would have the opportunity to serve and the right to.
-- from www.deseretnews.com
"Sunday's deployment of troops from the 489th Engineering and the 141st Military Intelligence battalions from Camp Williams brings to 25 percent the number of state volunteer Guard soldiers now on active duty, the highest proportionally in the nation, said Lt. Col. Brad Blackner, spokesman for the Utah National Guard."
We're talking about middle class white boys here folks. My guess is, there'll be more white casualties (as there were in Afghanistan) than black, brown, red and yellow combined.
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.