WASHINGTON (AP) -- Americans would have to sign up for a new military draft after turning 18 under a bill the incoming chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee says he will introduce next year.
Rep. Charles Rangel, D-N.Y., said Sunday he sees his idea as a way to deter politicians from launching wars.
"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, has said the all-volunteer military disproportionately puts the burden of war on minorities and lower-income families.
Rangel said he will propose a measure early next year. While he said he is serious about the proposal, there is little evident support among the public or lawmakers for it.
In 2003, Rangel proposed a measure covering people age 18 to 26. It was defeated 402-2 the following year. 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. "I think to do so is hypocritical."
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, 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.
The Democrats absolutely can't stop themselves from stuffing their feet in their mouths, can they? It's pathological. A second "botched joke" in less than a month.
"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.
Last edited by Bob Lanier; 11-19-2006 at 09:31 PM.
18-42???? whats a family gonna do if their dad gets shipped off?
The draft will supposely have the politicians look harder at starting another war.... because it will mean their kids would have to go....PLEASE...get real.
I would have to agree. They will pull strings to keep their kids in country.
Last time around, the draft had so many "LOOPHOLES", that just about anyone could get out. Can't say if this time around it's going to be any different.
there won't be a draft
Wait a minute, this is what Dan said would happen when Bush got elected president. Looks like he got his wires crossed. I think what Dan meant to say is the draft is what would happen if the Democrats got elected
At any rate, I don't see this legislation passing, but even the fact it's a topic of discussion means Dan needs to eat some serious Democraptic crow...
Charlie Rangal has been running this scam for awhile. Rangel's district includes Harlem. He has no intention of getting his cons uents' collective asses shot off. Further, he knows that upper income families will be beating their own Senators and Representatives doors down to oppose this legislation. It's not a question only of rich senators and representatives not voting for it to keep their own kids from getting sucked into the whirlpool. They won't vote for it because their cons uents will crucify them if they do. So why propose it? Simply to point out the hypocrisy of support for this war.
You want an exit strategy? Rangel's got one. If you support this war, send your kid to fight it. Send your kid; not just poor black kids from Harlem and other members of the disenfranchised but your kid. That's right, the one who's currently working on a graduate degree (there are no college deferments with Charlie's bill - see SEC. 7. INDUCTION EXEMPTIONS). Rangel knows full well this bill will not be supported, and the timing of this announcement couldn't be more appropriate. McCain is now igniting his 2008 presidential bid and yet he claims we need to send more troops to Iraq? Let's see how he fields Charlie's challenge. He will cut and run in the face of the voters, and when he does Charlie will say, "Well then, if the American people - all the American people - aren't willing to pay for this war with the lives of their sons and daughters, then maybe we should just get out." Charlie's no dummie. It's a smart move.
John McCain is full of ...
McCain: More troops needed in Iraq
AP 11/19/06
WASHINGTONMSNBC- Without additional troops to ensure victory in Iraq, the U.S. couldfind itself more vulnerable to terrorist attacks at home, Sen. John McCain said
Sunday.
Taking the opposite tack, newly empowered Democrats pressed their case for a
phased withdrawal of American forces. They hoped a blue-ribbon advisory panel
would propose a way ahead for Iraq, while making clear the U.S. military mission
shouldn't last indefinitely.
McCain, front-running GOP presidential hopeful for 2008, said the U.S. must send
an overwhelming number of troops to stabilize Iraq or face more attacks - in the
region and possibly on American soil.
"I believe the consequences of failure are catastrophic," said McCain, R-Ariz. "It will
spread to the region. You will see Iran more emboldened. Eventually, you could see
Iran pose a greater threat to the state of israel."
Where does McCain propose we get these additional troops? Mexican and South American immigrants to the US as has been proposed by some maybe? Certainly not recent immigrants from Saudi Arabia I bet.
There should be a check box on every income tax form asking if you are in favor of staying the course in Iraq. If you either check yes or don't check it at all, you if eligible or any male dependent in your household between 18-26 will be required to sign up for a draft.
If there are more no votes the US pulls out entirely. If you support the war, then fight in it.
"I believe the consequences of failure are catastrophic," said McCain, R-Ariz. "It will
spread to the region. You will see Iran more emboldened. Eventually, you could see
Iran pose a greater threat to the state of israel."
... all true.
Just as people didn't want to believe that their very own US president, always with the benefit of doubt. and All The President's Men, lied to the world about the "justifications" for something as important as starting a war, but the US finally realizes, catching up with the rest of the world, that the Repugs lied, and then compounded the catastrophe with Repugs' infamous, historically remarkable incompetence.
Similarly, I think people don't want think about how catastrophic the Repugs breaking and losing Iraq will be, sending the USA down in defeat in fact and above all in the eyes of the terrorists, and how catastrophic and dangerous Iraq will be for many years, as Iraq's $4B/month oil becomes avaiable to support terrorism and the destruction of the Jew-dogs.
And Israel is much more at risk than continental USA.
Last edited by boutons_; 11-20-2006 at 09:30 AM.
Rangel introduces the same bill every year and always votes against it himself. It's a red herring imo.
I think it is great idea.
Maybe then some of these young neocons will think twice before getting all gung-ho about going to war.
Just make sure every kid of every politician under the capitols dome is included.
And no exemptions for flat footed wimps or other stupid ass deferments.
If we had a draft, this war would have been long over.
Lots of strawmen running around on this thread, but typical for the leftists here...
Too many people here that want this war, but don't have the least bit of responsibility to volunteer to fight in it.
"this war would have been long over."
the war would have never started with the draft in place. conscripts and their parents would have been much less trusting, more sceptical of the lying WH if they knew their kids' lives were at stake.
Yeah, that makes sense.
Virtually every war in human history until the mid 20th century was fought with conscripts/slaves, but maybe things change.
If Dumbya's daughters were eligible no way he starts this ed up war. But I'm sure he would've found some cushy reason why his daughters were not eligible for the draft such as, "They can do more good here at home", etc. Just like so many neocons and their pathetic reasons why they suppor the war are not willing to enlist.
There are troops who are on their 3rd and 4th tours of Iraq in as many years. Yeah, they will proudly serve their nation because it is their sworn duty, but that's not what they volunteered for, and that's not what they were promised. These guys and gals have families, kids, who will have to go through another Thanksgiving and another Christmas without mommy and daddy. Where are just a fraction of the 55 million americans who voted for W and his intervention policies in 04? That's what Rangal's bill is really about - not politics, not a peace statement, it's about good old fashioned accountability.
That is interesting logic there.
One could look at it this way: "You are not en led to support something unless you are directly contributing to it." So, unless you are a teacher, shut up about education. Unless you are a Congressperson, shut up about corruption in Congress. Unless you operate a clinic, shut up about health care reform.
Or, one could look at it this way: "Only people who serve in the military should decide military policy." What a great idea! Forget this whole concept of civilian control!
Or, maybe you mean that the people serving in Iraq should have the primary moral influence upon whether we continue over there. Careful -- I don't think the majority of them share your beliefs on the war.
Beliefs are vulnerable when they are built upon shoddy thinking. Try again.
One could, I suppose, but why would one interpret the quoted statement in either of those ways?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
