A New Tactic Against War: Renew Talk About Draft

New York Times ^ | 2/08/03 | CARL HULSE

[kattracks]

ASHINGTON, Feb. 8 — Back in the late 1960's, Pete Stark was known as the hippie banker for installing a huge peace sign on his bank in the East Bay and counseling draftees on whether to flee to Canada.

Now, Mr. Stark, a pugnacious liberal House member from Northern California, is back in the antiwar movement. But he and some of his fellow Democrats are trying a new approach — advocating a return of the draft.

"My constituents at home think I have lost my mind," Mr. Stark said. "They say, `Why do you want to give the military more soldiers?' I am supporting the draft as a way to oppose the war."

Mr. Stark, a veteran who said the chief danger he faced in the military was getting his tie caught in a typewriter, is co-sponsoring a proposal by Representatives Charles B. Rangel of New York and John Conyers Jr. of Michigan, both Democrats.

Those two lawmakers, veterans and senior members of the Congressional Black Caucus, say the risks of combat losses should be spread more equitably among Americans. They have a Senate ally, Ernest F. Hollings, Democrat of South Carolina, who says he wants to give advocates of American military action in Iraq and elsewhere a little something to chew over.

"One way to avoid a lot more wars to come is institute the draft," Mr. Hollings said. "You will find that this country will sober up, and its leadership, too."

While Democrats are climbing aboard the induction bandwagon, Republicans are dropping off. Representative Nick Smith of Michigan, who in the past had his own draft proposal, has no interest in helping Democrats with theirs, an aide said. Republicans generally view the Rangel plan as a cynical effort to rouse antiwar sentiment.

"There is no serious discussion of it," Representative John A. Boehner, the Ohio Republican who is chairman of the Committee on Education and the Workforce, said about bringing back the draft.

Mr. Rangel, who was wounded in Korea and decorated for his efforts to evacuate the injured during a battle, makes no apologies for trying to score a political point. "I hope I am saying that war is hell and if indeed our country's security is in jeopardy, then we must as a country be prepared to make sacrifice," Mr. Rangel said.

While few in Congress give the legislation any chance, it is reminding some of the days when the lottery they followed most closely was not Powerball but the one conducted by the Selective Service. Mr. Rangel is scheduled to address students at Harvard on Monday, a meeting that could illustrate whether the draft still has the capacity to stir crowds on college campuses.

It is already clear that the subject continues to elicit raw emotions. Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld was forced to apologize last month for saying Vietnam draftees had added "no value" to the military, a comment that infuriated veterans groups.

Though Mr. Rumsfeld might have had to back down from his choice of words, the Pentagon is adamantly opposed to a return to the draft, saying its all-volunteer military is a superior fighting force.

"The all-volunteer force has served the nation for more than a quarter-century, providing a military that is experienced, smart, disciplined, and representative of America," a recently circulated Pentagon position paper said.

The draft has had a long and troubled place in United States military history, from colonial conscripts through the riots of the Civil War to the draft-card burning of Vietnam. That was the last war in which some young American men were forced to serve. Faced with protests, President Richard M. Nixon abolished the draft in 1973.

Those advocating a return of the draft do not quarrel with the capabilities of the modern American military. They argue that it is more of a fairness issue, that the weight of combat should not fall just on those who signed up, often to get ahead economically or educationally.

"In the event that we do find ourselves in a war," Mr. Rangel said, "those that have to go to fight should not be selected from those who volunteered because of economic circumstances."

Mr. Hollings said bringing back the draft might also ease the burden on National Guard and reserve personnel whose lives are disrupted by frequent deployments.

Were the draft in place today, Mr. Rangel said, President Bush would be required to make a more forceful and detailed case about why intervention in Iraq is necessary. The draft, he said, "means that when you are selling war, you have to be good about it."

[CWOJackson]

The Republicans should do everything they can to insure that nothing impedes this bill from being introduced. Once it's on the table they should get very public in their opposition but suggest that the Democrats might actually be able to actually push the bill through.

[Cathryn Mataga]

Really, I think this draft thing would be suicide for the Democrats. Republicans should campain next election as the anti-draft party -- with Democrats as the draft party.

[RANGERAIRBORNE]

"Vietnam draftees had added "no value" to the military, a comment that infuriated veterans groups."

This is what I really like about Rumsfeld- he is not afraid to speak the truth. I served in the "draftee Army" , and I cannot imagine what the hell we would do with a million or so disgruntled, inept, and unwilling "soldiers" in today's high-tech, fast-paced Army.

Potato-peeling has been automated, thank you very much- and most other military jobs take too long to become proficient at for a short-termer draftee.

I volunteered for Special Forces, at a time when casualties were extremely high, specifically to escape from the company of poorly-trained and poorly-led draftees. Someone should write a book about what a draftee Army was REALLY like- not the romantic notions of "young men of all sorts of backgrounds learning to get along", and all that crap.

That stuff is all Government propaganda. The sons of the rich or politically well-connected did not serve, and the few who did (like Al Gore) got cushy billets with less risk than they would have have experienced at a fraternity kegger! (Or they got a nice slot in the National Guard...)

[Magoo]

Tis folly to cry "wolf" in any arena of public life. Politics so much the more so.

[Cathryn Mataga]

Hmm, I never quite understood how that worked. I thought anyone could join the National Guard if it looked like they were going to be drafted, back in the Vietnam days.

Interesting comments on the draftees. Honestly, I have no real knowledge of this, other than what I read. It's interesting to hear the viewpoint that draftees were just trouble. Sounds almost like the Democrats want draftees so there will be more casualties and therefore more hatred of the Republicans.

[RANGERAIRBORNE]

Good Grief! Are you serious? National Guard slots were guarded like Fort Knox during Vietnam- they were for the sons of the "upper classes", who did, at most, six months "active duty for training", then went back to their REAL lives. (Most did not even have to do that much). It was essentially legalized draft-dodging. You did NOT get a NG appointment without "political influence", which usually meant that your family could buy the spot for you. They were worth more than gold.

[Cathryn Mataga]

Well, sorry, but I was just asking. Chill out dude. I was only 8 years old in 1969, so I don't have any direct knowledge of the times.

[patton]

Hmmmm. These guys are in for an unpleasent surprise.

I am being nominated to our local SS Board, and I CANNOT BE BRIBED.

[RANGERAIRBORNE]

Sorry- I wasn't trying to unload on you. But I belong to a couple of veteran's organizations, and I do not consider people who spent Vietnam in the National Guard to be "real" veterans. They are frauds, phonies, good-time rock-and-roll plastic-banana organ grinder's monkeys.

Too bad if I have offended any cowards out there.

[TrappedInLiberalHell]

"One way to avoid a lot more wars to come is institute the draft"

This is not, in and of itself, a good reason to institute the draft. It seems to me what they're saying is "Let's stuff the armed forces with a lot of people who don't want to be there, so our leaders will be afraid to fight just wars with their weakened army".

To give an analogy of how I see it: My wife is an Australian citizen. She says that voting is mandatory there. I would hate for that to happen here. I couldn't stand the thought of my vote being more than offset by a bunch of idiots who don't know anything about the candidates.

If I'm missing Mr. Hollings' point, please help me to understand.

[RANGERAIRBORNE]

I really do not believe that bribery of Selective Service Board members was a big problem- but I do believe that socially prominent families got a LOT of "special attention".

Bribery, if you want to call it that (and I do) generally involved politicians- a few thousand dollars towards a senior State legislator's or Governor's re-election fund could work wonders in keeping your tender butt out of the really unpleasant places...

After all, the sons of the rich were FAR more valuable to society than the rest of us, n'est pas?

I hope you get on the SS Board- and I hope you can resist political influence, in ALL of it's various forms. It is not just money, you know.

[RANGERAIRBORNE]

Oops- forget my little foray into High School French in that last post- I would do better in Latin (or Korean!).

[patton]

We have been discussing this at work - "Draft my kidd and I will come after yours!"

It is an issue.

Especially in the liberal hell where I live - the city is about 95% demon.

On the other hand, my kids can shoot...

[Caipirabob]

BTW

WELCOME ABOARD!

Good to see new faces...er...you know.

[MarkDel]

This is a truly pathetic attempt by Democrats to turn "fence riders" into members of the anti-war block. While Rumsfeld's words may seem harsh, they were essentially correct if you study the history of the Vietnam War. If you took a survey of current members of our Armed Forces, they would definitely tell you that the all-volunteer force is VASTLY superior and we should not disrupt 30 years of military strength by going back to the draft. The draft was appropriate in World War II when mass numbers of troops were necessary, but then again, in those days, you didn't need a draft all that often as most young men from that generation were more than willing to serve their country on a voluntary basis.

[Just mythoughts]

Since the House could prevent this measure from happening, they should with a wink and nod encourage these "swine" to come up with a plan for a Draft. Make them put their plan into writing.

[RANGERAIRBORNE]

"most young men from that generation were more than willing to serve their country on a voluntary basis."

Another myth, I'm afraid. Draft-dodging was a fine art during WW II. Read any of Paul Fussell's excellent books (especially "DOING BATTLE")

[weegee]

It's not just about having a weak military (full of don't wanna be there draftees), it's about creating protests in the streets by motivating teens/college students to protest against a war that will now "involve" them.

The Rats don't try to motivate this country together, they seek to divide this nation by pitting one group against another.

[LeftyStomper]

Draft-dodging was a fine art during WW II. Read any of Paul Fussell's excellent books (especially "DOING BATTLE")

Burkett's book supports what you say. According to Burkett ("Stolen Valor"), the volunteer to conscript ratio was *higher* in Vietnam than either WWII or Korea.