Rep. Rangel Will Seek to Reinstate Draft

[ethyl]

Rep. Rangel Will Seek to Reinstate Draft - washingtonpost.com

This guy really needs to give it up.

By JOHN HEILPRIN
The Associated Press
Sunday, November 19, 2006; 1:31 PM

WASHINGTON -- Americans would have to sign up for a new military draft after turning 18 if the incoming chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee has his way.

Rep. Charles Rangel, D-N.Y., said Sunday he sees his idea as a way to deter politicians from launching wars and to bolster U.S. troop levels insufficient to cover potential future action in Iran, North Korea and Iraq.

"There's no question in my mind that this president and this administration would never have invaded Iraq, especially on the flimsy evidence that was presented to the Congress, if indeed we had a draft and members of Congress and the administration thought that their kids from their communities would be placed in harm's way," Rangel said.

Rangel, a veteran of the Korean War who has unsuccessfully sponsored legislation on conscription in the past, said he will propose a measure early next year.

In 2003, he proposed a measure covering people age 18 to 26. This year, he offered a plan to mandate military service for men and women between age 18 and 42; it went nowhere in the Republican-led Congress.

Democrats will control the House and Senate come January because of their victories in the Nov. 7 election.

At a time when some lawmakers are urging the military to send more troops to Iraq, "I don't see how anyone can support the war and not support the draft," said Rangel, who also proposed a draft in January 2003, before the U.S. invasion of Iraq.

Sen. Lindsey Graham, a South Carolina Republican who is a colonel in the U.S. Air Force Standby Reserve, said he agreed that the U.S. does not have enough people in the military.

"I think we can do this with an all-voluntary service, all-voluntary Army, Air Force, Marine Corps and Navy. And if we can't, then we'll look for some other option," said Graham, who is assigned as a reserve judge to the Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals.

Rangel, the next chairman of the House tax-writing committee, said he worried the military was being strained by its overseas commitments.

"If we're going to challenge Iran and challenge North Korea and then, as some people have asked, to send more troops to Iraq, we can't do that without a draft," Rangel said.

He said having a draft would not necessarily mean everyone called to duty would have to serve. Instead, "young people (would) commit themselves to a couple of years in service to this great republic, whether it's our seaports, our airports, in schools, in hospitals," with a promise of educational benefits at the end of service.

Graham said he believes the all-voluntary military "represents the country pretty well in terms of ethnic makeup, economic background."

Repeated polls have shown that about seven in 10 Americans oppose reinstatement of the draft and officials say they do not expect to restart conscription.

Outgoing Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld told Congress in June 2005 that "there isn't a chance in the world that the draft will be brought back."

Yet the prospect of the long global fight against terrorism and the continuing U.S. commitment to stabilizing Iraq have kept the idea in the public's mind.

The military drafted conscripts during the Civil War, both world wars and between 1948 and 1973. An agency independent of the Defense Department, the Selective Service System trains, keeps an updated registry of men age 18-25 _ now about 16 million _ from which to supply untrained draftees that would supplement the professional all-volunteer armed forces.

Rangel and Graham appeared on "Face the Nation" on CBS.

Is this an attempt to make a political statement or does he actually want this to pass? I'm sure his party is glad he didn't do this before the elections.

[motivez]

This is the last thing Democrats need as one of the first major policy decisions from someone who's going to be chairing an important committee..

It's never going to pass.. so bringing it up just does the Democrats harm. In '04 it might have had some use to kill the idea that Democrats would bring back the draft by offering it up to be sacrificed on the floor.. but this? Pretty stupid move, IMO.

[SoFlaJDM]

he knows it's not going to pass... he just feels like if you still support the war, then they must support a draft

[ballz2wallz]

Allah says it beatifully:

Say it with me: permanent. Democratic. majority.

It's funny he brings it up again, since he voted against it last time it lost 402-2

[motivez]

He even voted against it himself last time. I didn't know Murtha was one of the people to vote for it. Interesting.

[kinggovernor]

this will never happen it would ruin at all the progressive we have made in the military since vietnam

[7960]

Of course it'll fail, but I'd like to see it actually get some traction. The GOP could use an easy win in '08.

[Diesel66]

Originally Posted by 7960

Of course it'll fail, but I'd like to see it actually get some traction. The GOP could use an easy win in '08.

Probally be like in 2004 where the idiots claimed the GOP was pushing for a draft

[RMNIXON]

Originally Posted by motivez

This is the last thing Democrats need as one of the first major policy decisions from someone who's going to be chairing an important committee..

It's never going to pass.. so bringing it up just does the Democrats harm. In '04 it might have had some use to kill the idea that Democrats would bring back the draft by offering it up to be sacrificed on the floor.. but this? Pretty stupid move, IMO.

Well they do miss those Vietnam draft protests don't they. But this was a very predictable move. And it does not get your party any closer to a bipartisan compromise on Iraq policy now does it? I would suggest that before January you make it easier for members of your party not to constantly trip over their more extreme members.

Originally Posted by motivez

This is the last thing Democrats need as one of the first major policy decisions from someone who's going to be chairing an important committee..

It's never going to pass.. so bringing it up just does the Democrats harm. In '04 it might have had some use to kill the idea that Democrats would bring back the draft by offering it up to be sacrificed on the floor.. but this? Pretty stupid move, IMO.

You're exactly right, this is political suicide. I'm not 100% opposed to the draft but doing it based on politics is ridiculous.

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95

You're exactly right, this is political suicide. I'm not 100% opposed to the draft but doing it based on politics is ridiculous.

Explain to me why it wasn't political suicide the first time he proposed it?

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

Explain to me why it wasn't political suicide the first time he proposed it?

Because the democrats didn't have a majority and it got exactly ZERO media attention. The media still may give it zero attention but reality is now that they hold the majority they will have their proposals taken more seriously.

[7th Ninjai]

The bill he is introducing also states that the eligible ages for the draft are 18-42. I believe the age range currently for the draft is 18 - 26. This guy is out of his mind if he believes me or my wife will be serving overseas in Iraq or give up our careers for two years to guard a seaport. I'm happy that Dems are back in the majority from the checks and balances standpoint, but that's it. They are no better than Republicans on every other issue.

[7960]

Originally Posted by 7th Ninjai

The bill he is introducing also states that the eligible ages for the draft are 18-42. I believe the age range currently for the draft is 18 - 26. This guy is out of his mind.......

He wants to make it a war deterrent, so before anyone in congress votes "yes" they'll have to consider the possibility that a wife/husband/40 yo son may have to go.

He's an asshole is what he is.

[motivez]

Originally Posted by 7th Ninjai

The bill he is introducing also states that the eligible ages for the draft are 18-42. I believe the age range currently for the draft is 18 - 26. This guy is out of his mind if he believes me or my wife will be serving overseas in Iraq or give up our careers for two years to guard a seaport. I'm happy that Dems are back in the majority from the checks and balances standpoint, but that's it. They are no better than Republicans on every other issue.

It's like 7960 said, it's really just to make people think about the war in terms of their own family, their own kids.. It's never going to pass, and it's not a Democrat-party sponsored proposal.

Originally Posted by motivez

It's like 7960 said, it's really just to make people think about the war in terms of their own family, their own kids.. It's never going to pass, and it's not a Democrat-party sponsored proposal.

You're right because its idiotic. Part of me says there should be forced service from high school graduation for two years, or go to college and then serve your two years. But this business of drafting 40 year olds is just flat retarded.

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95

Because the democrats didn't have a majority and it got exactly ZERO media attention. The media still may give it zero attention but reality is now that they hold the majority they will have their proposals taken more seriously.

Kind of like what the Republicans proposed to pull out of Iraq, and then they all voted against it, and it was awarded the political play of the week...

[DosEquis]

I agree with him and hope it goes through. It will definitely be the most effective "check" on whether to go to war or not, and whether the war is truly neccessary.

[jcgrrnm]

Tho not in the featured news article, Rangel is claiming that the volunteer force relies too heavily on the poor and minorities. Funny, in the Vietnam era and subsequent Presidential races, the arguement was that with the draft guys like Bush and Quayle could seek preferment in the National Guard or guys like Clinton could hide out at Oxford; the grunts doing the fighting were (you guessed it) the poor and minorities. Now it looks like Rangel wants to give even more opportunities to sidestep combat, by adding in hospital work or other VISTA-type service to the alternatives. 7960 has the anatomical analysis just right.

Originally Posted by DosEquis

I agree with him and hope it goes through. It will definitely be the most effective "check" on whether to go to war or not, and whether the war is truly neccessary.

You're kidding right? You want everyone up to age 42 to be eligble for the draft?