Congressman Charles Rangel on Thursday introduced H.R. 5741, a bill that would reinstate a compulsory military draft, or alternative national service, during times of war, for men and women, aged 18 to 42, who are citizens or permanent residents of the United States.
"What troubles me most about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan is the total indifference to the suffering and loss of life among our brave young soldiers on the battlefield," Congressman Rangel said. "The reason is that so few families have a stake in the war which is being fought by other people's children.
"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.
"In other words, if you support the war, you should support a compulsory military draft," Congressman Rangel said.
Rangel's idea seems sound at first blush. The problem is that there's no declared state of war right now, unless you count North Korea, and that one's left over from the '50s. Does that mean we'll have the draft brought back as soon as the bill passes? What constitutes a "time of war"? There are a lot of details here that still need sorting out.
By: Brant
Posts
4 comments:
This isn't going to pass; Rangel's done this four times before and it got next to no support.
You're absolutely right. But it was a slow news day, unless you wanted a report of how my son and nephews misbehaved their way through the entire afternoon...
It's also horse-dung. By his logic, the only valid military force is a compulsory one (issues of effectiveness utterly ignored for the sake of politics). His is simply a back-handed way to make the cost of war too high to conduct, thus lessening the efficacy of US foreign policy. The man is, frankly, and intellectual travesty.
Considering the numbers of politicians who managed to avoid the draft for the Vietnam and Korean wars through many and varied deferments, I don't think there would be any more "sharing" of the burden now than before.
It's not as if more people were needed, in the great scheme of things - the all-volunteer military has had little trouble making its number quotas in recent years.
The only part of a draft military that makes sense would be the ability to grab not everyone who doesn't uncontrollably spit blood when he talks, but to grab certain people with very definite skill sets (e.g. languages) when they're required.
Post a Comment