Maybe Charlie Rangel is right in saying that America should bring back the draft, although we get to the same conclusion for different reasons.
Rangel believes that reinstatement of the draft is most equitable toward all. He thinks it's unfair that privileged kids like mine don't equally share the burden of military service. Actually, I'm starting to think that making them serve is the best way to keep them safe. It sounds counterintuitive, but think about it.
Order in Afghanistan is crumbling. So far this year, 51 NATO soldiers have been killed in what are referred to as "blue on green" attacks in which supposedly friendly forces attack our troops. So even though the Taliban knows we are leaving, and could sit back and wait to make its move when we cease combat operations in 2014, it wants to send a message to the United States about the futility of the last decade of war in the same country that the Soviets couldn't conquer.
Meanwhile, as investigators still seek to learn the circumstances surrounding the murder of J. Christopher Stevens, the U.S. ambassador to Libya, an estimated 30 people have died in 20 nations in protests over the movie Innocence of Muslims and, on Friday, France closed a number of its embassies to prevent confrontation stemming from a French magazine's publication of cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad. In the final 50 days of the American election, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is demanding that an American line be drawn in the sand with regard to Iran, even though he has not drawn one himself.
We live in very dangerous times, and some who would otherwise preach fiscal responsibility seem to relish the opportunity to pursue even more on military intervention, overlooking that we can't afford it, both in dollars and in bloodshed.
Perhaps, then, the best way to restrain our leaders against another foreign entanglement is to ensure that any significant commitment of troops will involve all American families. We need to make going to war more difficult.
This won't be an easy sell in Washington. Despite a decade of war, there has been no serious discussion of a draft since 9/11. Rangel, a Korean War veteran, has been the exception. Rangel has said fairness demands that the white middle and upper class share the burden of war. He has formerly proposed what he calls the Universal National Service Act on four occasions, most recently in 2010. The only time he received a vote was in 2004, when it was defeated, 402-2, and such was the farcical nature of that roll call that Rangel himself voted against it.
In March 2011, Rangel tried again. In seeking cosponsors, he wrote to his colleagues:
"The test for Congress, particularly for those members who support the war, is to require all who enjoy the benefits of our democracy to contribute to the defense of the country. All of America's children should share the risk of being placed in harm's way. The reason is that so few families have a stake in the war which is being fought by other people's children."
Rangel proposed that "all persons in the United States between the ages of 18 and 25, if called upon by the president during a declaration of war, a national emergency, or a military contingency operation, to perform national service for a minimum of two years with few exceptions."
He said such a law would cut down the number of deployments for active duty and Reserve military units who now see multiple deployments during the course of their enlistment due to troop-strength shortages, and provide an opportunity to work in education, health care, ports, security, and other services as deemed necessary by the president.
That effort didn't even get a vote.
Last December, on the anniversary of Pearl Harbor, Rangel tried again. "It's abundantly clear that everybody does not assume the same sacrifices, whether we're talking about taxes or loss of life," he said.
Had there been a draft on Sept. 12, 2001, Americans would have rallied to the cause. Whether the need was for troops, a war tax, or rationing, the public would have responded. But a force recruited by mandatory conscription would not still be in Afghanistan after 11 years. Rangel has said that if a draft had been in place, the invasion of Iraq would never have happened. He might be right.
Funny thing. Rangel sees a need for the draft so that kids like mine aren't off-limits. I see the need for a draft to ensure that a trigger-happy president and Congress don't overextend us in a dangerous world to fulfill commitments that should never have been made. Either way, it's an idea worthy of debate.
Originally published in the Philadelphia Inquirer
Valerie Plame Wilson: Why Is the U.S. Government Bullying an American Hero?
Robert Creamer: Five Reasons We Can't Trust Romney With Our National Security
Joel Rubin: Blaming America for Political Gain During the Middle East Violence
Lisa Cypers Kamen, MA: PTSD -- The IED That Awaits War Veterans at Home
I admire your sacrifices, the horrors and suffering you endured, and commend your combined efforts to make the world a better place...but by introducing and supporting legislation like this, you're no different than those "old men" who eagerly gambled your lives away in Vietnam, with the simple stroke of a pen.
*I'm* the one who'd have to do this fighting and compulsory ("volunteer") national service here, not you; even the proposed non-military national service age range is 18 - 42, and 42 is well below the age of anyone who served in Vietnam, much less Korea.
So why is some old f@rt with one foot in the grave (who won't be affected by this in any way) making policy something that would change the lives of my entire generation?
I hate to be blunt, but you had your time - all of you - and that time has passed.
This is my time now, and that of my peers; this is the natural order of things. We don't need, or want, your (twice-removed) generation making these drastic decisions for us, in the supposed name of "the greater good."
Comment and bicker if you must, constructive criticism is always welcome, but kindly stay out of our lives.
Thanks.
"Only the weak at heart decree a proclamation of war
Then stay at home there save and warm.
The faint of heart scold and scorn from afar
Sending their children to settle the score and bare the scars."
Democrats care more for their children and should never trust the GOP when it comes to war.
I think it is very suspicious that we don't have any occurrences of 9/11 until Romney makes a visit to Israel.
The point is that you aren't going to necessarily end a war or at least overnight through protests. It could take years and many lives before that happens. Especially when 99 percent of politicians back Israel first. Ok you might vote out the republicans or democrats but what good will it do when the other side is pro-war as well.
Did a draft prevent The Civil War, World War One, World War Two, The Korean War, Vietnam? No it did not. Regardless of your opinion of "Good Wars" like the Civil War and second World War; the first World War was a cluster**** that makes the mess we're in now look like child's play. A draft didn't end that debacle.
1) The cost in training military personnel in this age of tech is expensive. Why waist money on someone that doesn't want to serve.
2) Probably 3/4 of todays youths are not fit for service. Not mentally or physically.
3) While some may think that getting the rich guys kids in the service will acheve something, it won't. I've seen the assignment that senators kids get, and they are far from danger. Don't dump babysitting on the military, we have enough to do as it is.
4) Our military is not the best in the world because we have the largest military, it's the best because we have the most professional career military in the world.
5) When you figure in boot camp is 3 months long, follow on training, specialty, or advanced training can be for weeks to a year of additional training, then predeployment workups 3-6 months. (About 1/3 of first term enlistees don;t make it past the first 6 months.) The average cost, not including specialty trainging, is around $35,000 each before they ever step on a battle field.
Bringing back the draft is a bad idea and will not serve the purpose you think it will. Better to hold politicians accountable IMHO.
It;s a tuff nut to crack.
I will fight. I will lose, but I will die proud and go to live with Washington and Jefferson in the afterlife.
If Congress votes for a formal declaration of war, those in favor should have all children and relatives between 18-35 drafted, trained, and sent to the combat zone.
That is having skin in the game !
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jmflKFlGubkYUuLnntRO-rOuuNRw?docId=c90a31f788054427ab6f7176f6c1d4c9
There is no perhaps. If Romney knew that his five sons would be on the front line in any war he started you watch how fast he'd tone down his bellicose rhetoric. Of course we know that they would probably find a way out of serving just as their daddy did back in 1966.
Nations that won't fight their own wars usually lose them, and we haven't won a war since 1945.
Wars are part of the life of the nation, not just a few politicians who suddenly discover that foreign
politicians don't take them as seriously as their constitutents do.
Plus, there is nothing wrong with a few years in the military.
You do learn a lot about life, which would definetely cut down on the Liberal whiners who really don't seem to have a clue about it.
Some problems do have military solutions and some don't.
It's not hard to figure, provided you know something about it.
As has been said, amateurs talk tactics while professionals talk logistics.
But it's not hard to figure your chances in a war on a tactical level, which is where most conscripts wind up.
And some things are worth fighting for, some aren't.
Paradoxically, conscription compels the leaders to make that call before they start a war.
You can draft voters who think the cause is just but you can also get re-elected even after you send
volunteers to a hopeless cause.
The only thing worse than fighting a war is losing it and having a CinC and most of Congress that can't dress-right-dress is pretty good for losing.