|
Senior Democrat renews call for military draft
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Fir3start3r |
WTF? :wtf:
...and to think that this was the wailing of the left with the Republicans...
What's going on down there?? :nervous:
| quote: |
Senior Democrat renews call for military draft
By Jackie FrankSun Nov 19, 12:40 PM ET
An influential Democratic lawmaker on Sunday called for reinstatement of the draft as a way to boost U.S. troop levels and draw a broader section of the population into the military or public service.
U.S. Rep. Charles Rangel (news, bio, voting record), the incoming chairman of the House of Representatives' tax-writing committee, said he would introduce legislation to reinstate the draft as soon as the new, Democratic-controlled Congress convenes in January.
Asked on CBS' "Face the Nation" if he was still serious about the proposal for a universal draft he raised a couple of years ago, he said, "You bet your life. Underscore serious."
"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," he said.
Rangel, who opposed the 2003 invasion of Iraq, also said he did not think the United States would have invaded Iraq if the children of members of Congress were sent to fight. He has said the U.S. fighting force is comprised disproportionately of people from low-income families and minorities.
"I don't see how anyone can support the war and not support the draft. I think to do so is hypocritical," he said.
The New York Democrat had introduced legislation to reinstate the draft in January 2003 before the Iraq invasion. The Pentagon has said the all-volunteer army is working well and there is no need for a draft, and the idea had no traction in the Republican-led Congress.
Democrats gained control of both the House and Senate for the first time in 12 years in the November 7 election, and a wholesale change in the leadership of Congress is to be made in January. Rangel is to head the House Ways and Means Committee, which is charged with U.S. tax and trade legislation.
The draft was in place from 1948 to 1973, when the United States converted to an all-volunteer army. But almost all men living in the United States - including most male noncitizens - are required to register with the Selective Service upon reaching 18, and federal benefits, including financial aid for college studies, are contingent on registration.
Rangel said his legislation on the draft would also offer the alternative of a couple of years of public service with educational benefits.
|
>>Source<< |
|
|
| Groundhog Boy |
| What are you suprised about? He's doing it to prove a point and trying to bridge the gap between the "haves" and the "have nots." |
|
|
| Dale Gribble |
Who has been calling for a draft?? The neocons at the
PNAC
Letter to Congress on Increasing U.S. Ground Forces
January 28, 2005
Dear Senator Frist, Senator Reid, Speaker Hastert, and Representative Pelosi:
The United States military is too small for the responsibilities we are asking it to assume. Those responsibilities are real and important. They are not going away. The United States will not and should not become less engaged in the world in the years to come. But our national security, global peace and stability, and the defense and promotion of freedom in the post-9/11 world require a larger military force than we have today. The administration has unfortunately resisted increasing our ground forces to the size needed to meet today's (and tomorrow's) missions and challenges.
So we write to ask you and your colleagues in the legislative branch to take the steps necessary to increase substantially the size of the active duty Army and Marine Corps. While estimates vary about just how large an increase is required, and Congress will make its own determination as to size and structure, it is our judgment that we should aim for an increase in the active duty Army and Marine Corps, together, of at least 25,000 troops each year over the next several years.
There is abundant evidence that the demands of the ongoing missions in the greater Middle East, along with our continuing defense and alliance commitments elsewhere in the world, are close to exhausting current U.S. ground forces. For example, just late last month, Lieutenant General James Helmly, chief of the Army Reserve, reported that "overuse" in Iraq and Afghanistan could be leading to a "broken force." Yet after almost two years in Iraq and almost three years in Afghanistan, it should be evident that our engagement in the greater Middle East is truly, in Condoleezza Rice's term, a "generational commitment." The only way to fulfill the military aspect of this commitment is by increasing the size of the force available to our civilian leadership.
The administration has been reluctant to adapt to this new reality. We understand the dangers of continued federal deficits, and the fiscal difficulty of increasing the number of troops. But the defense of the United States is the first priority of the government. This nation can afford a robust defense posture along with a strong fiscal posture. And we can afford both the necessary number of ground troops and what is needed for transformation of the military.
In sum: We can afford the military we need. As a nation, we are spending a smaller percentage of our GDP on the military than at any time during the Cold War. We do not propose returning to a Cold War-size or shape force structure. We do insist that we act responsibly to create the military we need to fight the war on terror and fulfill our other responsibilities around the world.
The men and women of our military have performed magnificently over the last few years. We are more proud of them than we can say. But many of them would be the first to say that the armed forces are too small. And we would say that surely we should be doing more to honor the contract between America and those who serve her in war. Reserves were meant to be reserves, not regulars. Our regulars and reserves are not only proving themselves as warriors, but as humanitarians and builders of emerging democracies. Our armed forces, active and reserve, are once again proving their value to the nation. We can honor their sacrifices by giving them the manpower and the materiel they need.
Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution places the power and the duty to raise and support the military forces of the United States in the hands of the Congress. That is why we, the undersigned, a bipartisan group with diverse policy views, have come together to call upon you to act. You will be serving your country well if you insist on providing the military manpower we need to meet America's obligations, and to help ensure success in carrying out our foreign policy objectives in a dangerous, but also hopeful, world. |
|
|
| Lilith |
| quote: | Originally posted by Dale Gribble
You will be serving your country well if you insist on providing the military manpower we need to meet America's obligations, and to help ensure success in carrying out our foreign policy objectives in a dangerous, but also hopeful, world. |
It's going too be like this until the old 'Cold Warriors' shuffle off and go away, seems too be a case of foreign policy not keeping up with events like post-cold war downsizing of the armed forces too sustain the kind of boots on the ground they want too keep running around. |
|
|
| Shakka |
So the PNAC is the only group that has called for any sort of conscription? Since it appears on their website it is OK to call them the kettle but ignore the calls coming from other places? Even funnier is that in that letter, those neocons call themselves a bipartisan group.
Even funnier is the fact that Helmly's comments essentially cost him his job and got him shipped out. Either way, if you've ever met Helmly (which I'm sure you haven't), you'd have a little more perspective on his comments. (For starters, Helmly is the Chief of the Army Reserve, not the active Army--as stated in the letter). Secondly, that letter is almost 2 years old. We're talking about the here and now. Lastly, the letter doesn't specifically say anything about a draft. While it talks about raising troop levels, it is not specific in suggesting a draft. Perhaps the authors would be content to improve/change recruiting efforts (which have been doing fine as of late). Interpret it how you want, but make sure your conclusions are irrefutable if you're going to point fingers.
Please address Rangel's comments--don't try to divert this into another PNAC global conspiracy thread. |
|
|
| Dale Gribble |
| quote: | Originally posted by Q5echo
alright, explain to us slower folk where it says anything about a draft?...or don't:rolleyes: |
Seems these people understand what the pnac was saying.
veteransforamerica.org
and it has been talked about at plenty of other sites, some people can read between the lines.
Google links
---EDIT- had to take a phone call>
The point of the "Rangel article" is not to re-instate the draft to get more soldiers for the war in IRAQ, but to try to prevent future wars. Whats so hard to understand about that?
The odds are that we wouldn't be there if everybody had a stake in sending our kids off to fight a war of choice. |
|
|
| Shakka |
| quote: | Originally posted by Dale Gribble
The point of the "Rangel article" is not to re-instate the draft to get more soldiers for the war in IRAQ, but to try to prevent future wars. Whats so hard to understand about that?
|
So you're saying Rangel's agenda is to enlist more soldiers for the explicit purpose of fighting fewer wars in the future? Is it me, or is that somewhat back-asswards?
If the system ain't broke, why fix it? We've had a volunteer army for 30+ years that has worked just fine. Soldiers are generally satisfied, recruitment goals are regularly met and our military is second to none. If you take politics out of the whole equation, it's a non-starter. So with all that said, if Rangel just wants to institute a draft so that more soldiers will be at the ready for fewer future wars (with many more of them now in that position against their will due to the fact that they were drafted), what is the point? I'm more confused now than I was at the beginning of this thread and when the PNAC took Ron Helmly's comments out of context to push their own ideas. |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Shakka
So you're saying Rangel's agenda is to enlist more soldiers for the explicit purpose of fighting fewer wars in the future? Is it me, or is that somewhat back-asswards?
If the system ain't broke, why fix it? We've had a volunteer army for 30+ years that has worked just fine. Soldiers are generally satisfied, recruitment goals are regularly met and our military is second to none. If you take politics out of the whole equation, it's a non-starter. So with all that said, if Rangel just wants to institute a draft so that more soldiers will be at the ready for fewer future wars (with many more of them now in that position against their will due to the fact that they were drafted), what is the point? I'm more confused now than I was at the beginning of this thread and when the PNAC took Ron Helmly's comments out of context to push their own ideas. |
The problem I have is this article here:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washin...rmy-study_x.htm
This was back in January - have things changed since then?
Of course there's politics involved in Rangel's motion, which is PRECISELY his point. Of course our voluntary military has served a very good purpose for over 30 years, but if memory serves have we truly engaged in such a mess as we are today of invading a nation, destroying the foundation completely, and then attempting to rebuild it's infrastructure from the bottom up against an insurgency that's 95% from the sectarian factions? Let's face it - we've had some ugly situations in the past 30 years that our military has done some incredible work with, but NOTHING has been remotely similar to the mess we have today since the days of Vietnam.
I think that really is the central point here - how bad do these armchair warmongering Bush supporters want this (whom incidentally are jumping ship in drones lately)? Did they ever want this democracy bad enough in the heart of the Middle East to do exactly what was needed? And furthermore, do they have a decent grasp of history about wars and the true sacrifices made with such committments? It seems pretty obvious to me that the likes of the Rumsfelds, the Cheneys, and the rest of the neocons as they had such an aggressive ideological notion but failed to understand not only these committments, responsibilities, and sacrifices that had and MUST be made in order to truly create a reality out of their notions.
To me that is the true failure of the neoconservative movement. The notion of global hedgemony and world policing is nice and lovely where we force democracy via persistent and consistent invasion, but such actions carry not only grave consequences but heavy, heavy burdens of sacrifices that the Rumsfelds and the Cheneys were all too willing to ignore. What are these sacrifices? I'll let Glenn Greenwald explain in more detail:
| quote: | Following through on warmongering rhetoric
Those who melodramatically compare Islamic jihadists to the Nazi threat and who insist that we are engaged in some World War II-like, epic existential struggle are not just hysterical and misguided but also incredibly insincere. Their chest-beating rhetoric is virtually never accompanied by any actual sacrifice or risk -- not just personal/physical risk but even political risk or even economic sacrifice.
All of these warmongers who have been dominating our political dialogue and our foreign policy over the last five years believe that our current occupation of Iraq is only a small fraction of the military commitments we ought to be making. They harbor dreams of military confrontation with Iran and Syria, at a minimum, and the most hawkish among them -- the John McCains and Bill Kristols -- want far more troop commitments in Iraq alone. And there is a consensus of military and intelligence officials that far more military resources are needed simply to avoid a complete collapse of Afghanistan. We clearly cannot sustain our military aspirations with the current size of armed forces that we have.
Our military is spread so thin that it is on the verge of collapsing and they not only want to maintain our current commitments but also drastically expand them -- not just in Iraq, but in many other places. With all those premises assembled, what possible rationale is there for their opposition to a draft, other than (a) a desire that only other people (but never them or their families and friends) are subjected to the dangers required by their grand military schemes and/or (b) a cowardly desire to avoid the political risks of advocating unpopular measures which their chest-beating policies demand?
The bombastic analogy most frequently invoked by our non-fighting warmongers is World War II. In this vision, war advocates are the Churchill/FDR equivalent, Democrats are Neville Chamberlain, and the wandering bands of Islamic jihadists are the all-powerful Nazi military bent on world domination (and every new Islamic leader is the New Adolph Hitler). But unlike the play-acting, self-absorbed war advocates with which our country is currently saddled, Americans during World War II actually believed that fighting and winning that war was a matter of grave national urgency -- i.e., they actually believed what they were saying -- and for that reason followed through on their rhetoric by accepting a military draft.
Here is what Franklin Roosevelt, an actual "War President" -- as opposed to one who plays that role for political profit and personal fulfillment -- said when he accepted the Democratic nomination to run for President again in 1940. He expressly ran on a platform of re-instating the draft :
| quote: | Just as a system of national defense based on man power alone, without the mechanized equipment of modern warfare, is totally insufficient for adequate national defense, so also planes and guns and tanks are wholly insufficient unless they are implemented by the power of men trained to use them.
Such man power consists not only of pilots and gunners and infantry and those who operate tanks. For every individual in actual combat service, it is necessary for adequate defense that we have ready at hand at least four or five other trained individuals organized for non-combat services.
Because of the millions of citizens involved in the conduct of defense, most right thinking persons are agreed that some form of selection by draft is as necessary and fair today as it was in 1917 and 1918.
Nearly every American is willing to do his share or her share to defend the United States. It is neither just nor efficient to permit that task to fall upon any one section or any one group. For every section and every group depend for their existence upon the survival of the nation as a whole.
Lying awake, as I have, on many nights, I have asked myself whether I have the right, as Commander-in-Chief of the Army and Navy, to call on men and women to serve their country or to train themselves to serve and, at the same time, decline to serve my country in my own personal capacity, if I am called upon to do so by the
people of my country.
In times like these-in times of great tension, of great crisis-the compass of the world narrows to a single fact. The fact which dominates our world is the fact of armed aggression, the fact of successful armed aggression, aimed at the form of Government, the kind of society that we in the United States have chosen and established for ourselves. It is a fact which no one longer doubts -which no one is longer able to ignore.
It is not an ordinary war. It is a revolution imposed by force of arms, which threatens all men everywhere. It is a revolution which proposes not to set men free but to reduce them to slavery-to reduce them to slavery in the interest of a dictatorship which has already shown the nature and the extent of the advantage which it hopes to obtain. . . .
It is the continuance of civilization as we know it versus the ultimate destruction of all that we have held dear-religion against godlessness; the ideal of justice against the practice of force; moral decency versus the firing squad; courage to speak out, and to act, versus the false lullaby of appeasement.
But it has been well said that a selfish and greedy people cannot be free.
The American people must decide whether these things are worth making sacrifices of money, of energy, and of self. |
Anyone who wanted to join in that chest-beating rhetoric did so only carefully and with great thought, because they knew that doing so -- as Roosevelt made clear -- would mean that they would personally bear the burden of the war they were supporting and would be making great personal sacrifices for it of every kind. It makes no sense to claim that a country is facing some Epic Struggle for Its Very Existence but then be afraid to do what is necessary to fuel it -- whether that be tax increases to pay for it or conscripting those who are needed to fight it.
Over at Talk Left, Big Tent Democrat has the video of an MSNBC Joe Scarborough panel last night sitting around oh-so-self-approvingly recognizing that the "elite" which sends our country to war has no connection to the military. The panel, which includes the pro-war The New Republic's Michael Crowley -- all youthful and fresh-faced and un-fighting -- all lament the fact that the media and political figures who cheer on our wars have no real vested interest in avoiding wars because no sacrifice from them is required.
There is a reason why, pursuant to the Constitution, wars in the U.S. cannot be declared by the President, but instead require the consent of the American people through their Congress. As John Jay explained in Federalist 4, requiring that the American people approve of wars is essential for avoiding unnecessary wars, because Presidents will start wars that are unnecessary i.e., for their own benefit, but the people are much less likely to do so:
| quote: | | It is too true, however disgraceful it may be to human nature, that nations in general will make war whenever they have a prospect of getting anything by it; nay, absolute monarchs will often make war when their nations are to get nothing by it, but for the purposes and objects merely personal, such as thirst for military glory, revenge for personal affronts, ambition, or private compacts to aggrandize or support their particular families or partisans. These and a variety of other motives, which affect only the mind of the sovereign, often lead him to engage in wars not sanctified by justice or the voice and interests of his people. |
That is the real test for whether one really believes that a war is justifiable and necessary -- are you willing to risk your own life or the lives of your loved ones in that war? Is there any doubt at all -- literally any -- that if their war advocacy in Iraq and saber-rattling towards Iran and Syria meant that Jonah Goldberg, Glenn Reynolds, Rich Lowry, Hugh Hewitt, Bill Kristol, and all the tough guys in the House and Senate and/or their families would actually have to do the fighting -- rather than cheering for it from a safe distance -- that they would be more careful about advocating wars?
That is so self-evident that it requires no discussion. And just ponder how much better off our country would be if that increased level of caution prevailed prior to our invasion of Iraq, caution that would have existed had they known that their war advocacy meant that they very well might do the fighting.
Personally, I don't think a draft is needed because I don't think the U.S. ought to be engaging in massive military confrontations around the world. But there are many who do think that we need to be doing exactly that, and there is just no justification for such people to fail to follow their premises to their logical conclusions -- particularly as they pompously compare themselves to FDR and Churchill and can never get enough of praising their own "resolve" and "strength."
If we are going to continue on this warmongering path -- one war after the next, using military threats and even force as our principal "diplomatic" weapon -- then it is hard not to become more receptive to the idea of a draft. But these warmongers are not only afraid of fighting the wars they advocate, but even more pathetically, are even afraid of the political risks of following through fully on their claimed beliefs.
http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/...rmongering.html |
So to me the argument Rangel poses is a valid one - if we are to go to war with another country, it has to be our ENTIRE country that is willing to do so, and that includes sacrifices made by EVERYONE including and in my mind especially those who are the fiercest advocates for invasion. If those warmongers are unwilling to make such sacrifices for a war including sending their loved ones off to fight and die, especially one such as this one of choice, then I see no reason why any voluntary military stretched so incredibly thin to do a job that requires so much more should be called upon for such a situation. |
|
|
| Shakka |
| quote: | Originally posted by MisterOpus1
So to me the argument Rangel poses is a valid one - if we are to go to war with another country, it has to be our ENTIRE country that is willing to do so, and that includes sacrifices made by EVERYONE including and in my mind especially those who are the fiercest advocates for invasion. If those warmongers are unwilling to make such sacrifices for a war including sending their loved ones off to fight and die, especially one such as this one of choice, then I see no reason why any voluntary military stretched so incredibly thin to do a job that requires so much more should be called upon for such a situation. |
So you're saying that since this Administration waged a war that therefore there are many future wars on the immediate horizon? Certainly our government is aware of several of other potential hotbeds of problems, but let's not put the cart before the horse.
Furthermore, would you concede that had our military not been so drastically reduced in the 1990's that this discussion might be irrelevant? Nevertheless, it's a political hot potato. If Rangel didn't sound like Santa Claus when he talked, I'd say he wants a little revenge on those very warmongers you so despise. Or maybe he just wants to put more people on the government payroll. Either way, it likely largely comes down to a funding issue anyway. If retention is becoming particularly problematic and the net size of the overall military force is not shrinking, why the sudden re-raising of this nearly forgotton issue? They could increase combat pay rates or increase salaries across the board, which would be well deserved, which would probably solve the problem, assuming it really is one.
Rangel just wants the Man to pay for his seeins!!:disbelief |
|
|
| DJ Shibby |
lol, the thing is a jab at the neocons; it has no chance of passing and he knew that, he was trying to prove a point
all men and women of a certain age would be up for draft. he put that in on purpose to illustrate the point of how divided our culture is and how our emotions and decisions that we have towards one person may be completely different for another. |
|
|
| Fir3start3r |
| quote: | Originally posted by DJ Shibby
lol, the thing is a jab at the neocons; it has no chance of passing and he knew that, he was trying to prove a point
all men and women of a certain age would be up for draft. he put that in on purpose to illustrate the point of how divided our culture is and how our emotions and decisions that we have towards one person may be completely different for another. |
I don't believe there will be one either but were did it say he was kidding?
That's one hell of a way to make a point... |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Shakka
So you're saying that since this Administration waged a war that therefore there are many future wars on the immediate horizon? Certainly our government is aware of several of other potential hotbeds of problems, but let's not put the cart before the horse. |
There's a decent amount of evidence to demonstrate this Administration's ambitions on further invasions and military influence on other countries in that region, including Syria and Iran. Of course even they understood the practicality of such actions and cannot go any further. But there's plenty of evidence that the top minds of the neoconservative movement have (or at least had) the highest ambitions for future wars to bolster their cause. Haven't we talked about this in the past? I thought we have, though I'm not certain.
| quote: | | Furthermore, would you concede that had our military not been so drastically reduced in the 1990's that this discussion might be irrelevant? |
Good point. Post-Cold War measures initiated by both sides of the aisle were seemingly a bit premature, not just in the military but also in intelligence gathering.
| quote: | | Nevertheless, it's a political hot potato. If Rangel didn't sound like Santa Claus when he talked, I'd say he wants a little revenge on those very warmongers you so despise. |
I love his voice for that reason! He sounds like such a jolly man (though admittedly this topic isn't terribly "jolly").
| quote: | | Or maybe he just wants to put more people on the government payroll. |
Oh would you cut that out! Not every action by a Dem. is to make big government for crying out loud. I KNOW we've discussed this issue before - who's had the smallest government out of the last 4 presidents?
| quote: | Either way, it likely largely comes down to a funding issue anyway. If retention is becoming particularly problematic and the net size of the overall military force is not shrinking, why the sudden re-raising of this nearly forgotton issue? They could increase combat pay rates or increase salaries across the board, which would be well deserved, which would probably solve the problem, assuming it really is one.
Rangel just wants the Man to pay for his seeins!!:disbelief |
Funding isn't the issue here at all - Santa Claus knows damn well this sucker wasn't gonna get anywhere even with his own party. He was making a political point, and I still contend a valid one, so taking it any further than that is erroneous in my mind. |
|
|
|
|
