I’ve always liked the outspokenness of Rep. Charles Rangel, D-N.Y., the incoming chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee. His politics have been OK, too. But now he’s proposing that the country reinstate the draft.
What in the fuck?
The Dems have not even taken power yet, and they’re already trying to piss of the public and mess things up. What is he thinking? Well, here’s what he told The Associated Press:
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.
His points may have validity, but good God, man. This is not going to play well. I can hear the complaints now: Those Democrats want to send me/my kid/my grandkid into the Army!
This is not good. Not good at all.
This article appears in Nov 16-22, 2006.
Rangel’s press release explains it. It’s about the military going to the same groups to get “their quotas.” Also, Rangel doesn’t expect his bill to pass, as it failed prior 402-2 (Rangel voting against). It deals with the debate.
RANGEL REINTRODUCES DRAFT BILL
WASHINGTON – Lawmaker Says Volunteer Military May be Overwhelmed by Military Challenges in Iran, North Korea and Syria requiring more troops who will have to be drafted
Congressman Charles Rangel today introduced new legislation to reinstate the military draft that will include draftees up to 42 years of age.
“Every day that the military option is on the table, as declared by the President in his State of the Union address, in Iran, North Korea, and Syria, reinstatement of the military draft is an option that must also be considered, whether we like it or not,” Congressman Rangel said. “If the military is already having trouble getting the recruits they need, what can we do to fill the ranks if the war spreads from Iraq to other countries? We may have no other choice but a draft.”
The bill would mandate military service for men and women between the ages of 18 and 42. Deferments would be allowed only for completion of high school up to the age of 20, and for reasons of health, conscience or religious belief. Recruits not needed by the military in any given year would be required to perform some national civilian service.
“My bill conforms to the age standards that have been set by the Army itself,” Congressman Rangel said, referring to the Army’s recent announcement raising the top age for Army volunteers from 39 to 42. “With volunteers now being accepted up to the age of 42, it makes sense to cap the age of draftees at 42,” Congressman Rangel said.
Congressman Rangel first proposed legislation for the draft in January 2003 before the invasion of Iraq. Since then more than 2,200 American troops have been killed and 16,000 wounded. Despite dramatic increases in military bonuses, the Army failed to meet its recruiting goal last year by 6,000 recruits. In the face of that failure, last month the Army announced that it was doubling enlistment bonuses to $40,000 for Special Forces. Enlistment bonuses for Reservists were also doubled to $20,000 from $10,000. Reenlistment bonuses for specialized active duty soldiers were also increased drastically, going from $60,000 to $90,000.
“The Pentagon’s own researchers have reported that the military is broken and there’s no plan to fix it,” Congressman Rangel said. “It’s not unusual for active-duty and Reserve units to see two and three deployments. Troops are spending about a third of the time on deployment, instead of a fifth of the time, as preferred, to adequately rest, train and rebuild units.
”Our military is more like a mercenary force than a citizen militia. It is dominated by men and women who need an economic leg-up. Bonuses of up to $40,000 and a promise of college tuition look very good to someone from an economically depressed urban or rural community. But, as events unfold in Iran, Syria and North Korea and become even more dangerous, at what point will the risks outweigh the attraction of money–even to the hungriest recruits?
“I don’t expect my bill to pass; my purpose in introducing this legislation is for it to serve as a constant reminder that we have lost 2,200 of the best, brightest and bravest Americans, have had thousands more maimed, and countless Iraqi citizens killed. As the President speaks of a national response involving the military option, military service should be a shared sacrifice. Right now the only people being asked to sacrifice in any way are those men and women who with limited options chose military service and now find themselves in harm’s way in Iraq. A draft would ensure that every economic group would have to do their share, and not allow some to stay behind while other people’s children do the fighting.
“It is shameful for high ranking government officials who have never placed themselves in harm’s way to promote military solutions as a substitute for diplomacy. It’s disheartening to hear the most strident champions of war in Iraq or anywhere else who have never thought or voted in Congress to send their own children to war.
“I dare anyone to try to convince me that this war is not being fought predominantly by tough, loyal, and patriotic young men and women from the barren hills and towns of rural and underprivileged neighborhoods in urban America where unemployment is high and opportunities are few. As we see who are the troops coming home wounded and killed, I challenge anyone to tell me that the wealthiest have not been excluded from that roll call.
The Republican Leadership responded to my first bill by procedurally preventing debate on the issues it raised; let us see how they try to avoid facing the question of shared sacrifice this time.”
Thanks for the clarification, Mark. Having said that, it’s an inane, stupid approach. I just don’t get it. It’s like the Dems are trying to self-destruct.
Not self destruct but to debate the war and military policy. Plus, the Democrats haven’t not assumed control, which will take place in January.
There’s a better way to debate war and military policy than making headlines by proposing something that the public is — justifiably — MASSIVELY against.
No argument indeed. Was just pointing out Rangel’s “reasoning.”
I don’t know if I can buy Rangel’s reasoning for his comments. It would be like Michael Richards (Kramer) coming out now and saying that his whole tirade friday night was to show how wrong and hateful racism is.
In addition to Mark Kerr’s extremely thorough summary, check out the following from Lawrence O’Donnell in The Huffington Post: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lawrence-odonnell/rangel-is-right_b_34667.html
Among other sharp observations here, O’Donnell points out the following method to Rangel’s “madness”:
“The point he keeps repeating is: ‘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.'”
In this vein, it’s also arguable that the presence of a draft was the key reason the Vietnam War generated such vast and intense opposition during the late ‘60s and early ‘70s . … as opposed to the rather tepid opposition the Iraqi occupation has triggered within the U.S. so far. As Michael Moore demonstrated to great effect in those military recruiting scenes in “Fahrenheit 911,” Bush’s Iraq debacle has been played out mostly on the backs of the American underclass. And as long as it’s perceived to be poor ghetto youth and Appalachian “white trash” (per the Abu Grahib scandal) who are “volunteering” for the Iraq occupation force, stateside opposition may never reach that Vietnam-era tipping point.
Rangel also implies that, if the Iraq War is such a noble cause, why not give the offspring of Bush, Cheney, and the rest of the neo-con chicken-hawk brigade the “opportunity” to participate? This point would hardly be lost on the voting public: It’s widely known that Rangel is the furthest thing from a supporter of Bush’s world-domination policies. The American public has quite recently demonstrated that it can sort out nuances of this type, particularly where hypocrisy and fairness issues are concerned.
“Neo-con chicken-hawk brigade” = My new favorite phrase.
As a followup, here’s a link (in The Nation) that covers the debate over Rangel’s proposal:
http://www.thenation.com/blogs/notion?pid=143309
Obviously there’s lots of room for fair-minded disagreement about this issue.
It’s true that Sen. Rangel’s calls for a draft (he’s done it before) may make many say, “The Democratic party wants a draft” instead of “This guy wants to reinstate the draft.”
As an aside, here’s something from the left-leaning Politics1.com (see the post “Free Speech Zone”): According to the NYT, the highly touted Baker-Hamilton Iraq Study Group just produced a first draft of recommended options that does NOT include any version of a phased withdrawal of US troops from Iraq. All these newly elected congressional Dems — and the Dem leadership — kept saying for weeks they wanted to the see the ISG recommendations before formulating a specific Iraq policy. Now they look likely to be stuck with a “new” plan of options that — essentially — consists of “stay the course” variants.