Tammy Bruce: Rangel Wants the Draft

Rangel Wants the Draft

I debated what to title this post. At first, I thought, "Draft Moonbats: Not a Bad Idea." Let me elaborate. My first reaction to Rangel's proposal is probably like yours--I didn't like it, and I still don't. But it's the reasoning I detest, not necessarily the ultimate idea. Rangel's argument is set as a cynical move not meant to promote public service and encourage appreciation for our military, a simple and predictable political ploy. His argument?

House Democrat Wants Draft Reinstated

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.

First of all, Rangel is using the Kerry theory about our military--it's a bunch of poor, stupid people who have no other choice in life. He, like Kerry, simply cannot grasp the fact that you have raised children who love this country, that we have young people who join up because they care about this nation and want to serve. That notion is so foreign to the Left Elite they don't even consider it. The first lesson to draw from this is Kerry's attitude about our troops does indeed reflect the Dem Elite attitude in general.

And I'm sure lefties in general didn't anticipate this sort of move. If there is a dearth of anyone in the military, I think it's safe to say it's lefty moonbats who tend to not join up to serve this nation. How do I know this? Remember, this is the same mentality that just banned JROTC from high schools in San Francisco. The same mentality that banned military recruitment from colleges. Obviously the idea here is to keep young people from serving at all, because service in general promotes patriotism, and reminds people that this nation has to be fought for. Imagine lefties working so hard to keep the military away from college students, and now their own moonbat leadership wants to force them to go into uniform. Could be one of those sweet laws of unintended consequences.

Generally, I like the idea of requiring service to one's country. Rangel's proposal affect those ages 18-26, and would require 15 months of compulsory service. The majority of those drafted would serve in the military, while a few others would serve in some other service capacity. If we dismiss the cynical and insulting reason behind Rangel's proposal, I think it might actually not be a bad idea.

Michelle Malkin makes an excellent point that we already have numerous service-based organizations, but none of these require service. I see benefits Rangel isn't considering--we do have a generation of young people brainwashed by a public school system in the grip of leftists. Patriotism and an appreciation of this nation is on the decline specifically because leftists have worked overtime within media and education to make it so. How better to reverse the years of leftist conditioning by our school system (it starts in elementary school, folks, not college), by sending them to a few drill sergeants? Michelle also makes clear the hypocrisy of the Dems on this issue, as they tried to frighten people saying the Repubs wanted to bring back the draft.

Ultimately, we do need to fight the Dem agenda for the next 700 days, but let's not forget--these people are void of ideas, and when they do get one, it's usually steeped in hate and anger and meant to divide. They will miss how an idea like this, if embraced and crafted by conservatives, could actually do more for the American First agenda (our agenda), while reversing years of leftist conditioning of our young people.

UPDATE:

Pelosi says no way but then again she also said Murtha would be Majority Leader. This will be another test to see just how much control Pelosi does or does not have over House Dems.

Posted by Tammy · November 20, 2006 07:58 AM · Permalink
Leftists | Military | Patriotism

Comments

I'm wondering how many Americans wish they could have a do-over on the election. In my opinion, no military drafts unless dire circumstances require it. The idea of mandatory civil service repulses me. It smacks of Communism.

Posted by: pat_s at November 20, 2006 09:10 AM

As one with 15 years of reserve service, I cannot be emphatic enough in objecting to any kind of conscription.

The last thing I'd want is to be surrounded by a bunch of people, upon whom my life may one day depend, knowing that they don't want to be there with me. I can't count on them. The country can't count on them.

We have the finest military today that this country has ever had, and the all-volunteer system is largely the reason why.

Why is it that in the 1980s we could maintain an 18-division active duty army and a 600-ship navy with volunteers alone, but evidently a build up the force from its current 10-division/300-ship size can't be accomplished without resort to a draft? Especially considering how our population has grown by several million people since the 80s? It doesn't make any sense.

Unless, of course, the "need" for the draft has nothing to do with military requirements at all, but is crassly political instead. Leave it to Democrats like Rangel to propose a draft specifically to debilitate the military.

Bottom line: In a nation with a population of 300 million, and with the technology to enable a soldier today to be as combat effective as two or three were just a few decades ago, then if we can't produce enough people of sufficient patriotism to step forward and volunteer to defend it then we really don't deserve to have a country in the first place.

Posted by: Gaius Livius at November 20, 2006 09:53 AM

Charles Bernard Rangel, the best argument this side of Ted Kennedy as to why there should be term limits.

Posted by: PeteRFNY at November 20, 2006 10:08 AM

The military has changed organizationally through the years since the Vietnam War. Think tanks and universities studying organizations came to the conclusion that the human being is simultaneously the best and the worst part of any enterprise, whether it is a manufacturing company or an infantry battalion. Adding personnel beyond a certain point previously was thought to provide diminishing returns.

Now it is realized that passing that point actually reduces the effectivity of the organization. The commanders on the ground in Iraq know this, so they do not want any more troops beyond what they absoluteley need to be effective. Added to this is the factor of having to babysit unmotivated, misplaced draftees in combat. In the U.S., expensive, lifetime veteran's benefits would accrue to any draftee, regardless of his/her usefulness.

I wouldn't expect Rangel or most Congressmen to appreciate this reality unless they would accept good counsel from experts and Rangel especially does not seem to be disposed to listening to wisdom.

Posted by: BA in LA at November 20, 2006 11:05 AM

I'm against the very idea of compulsory service. That said, I try to encourage those youth I come in contact with to participate in some sort of civil or military service. This sort of voluntary activity builds character. Compulsory service will not make our youth better citizens or more patriotic. In fact, denying them the choice may even serve to make our society less civil.

"Choice! The boy has not a real choice, has he? Self-interest, the fear of physical pain drove him to that grotesque act of self-abasement. The insincerity was clear to be seen. He ceases to be a wrongdoer. He ceases also to be a creature capable of moral choice." - Anthony Burgess, A Clockwork Orange

(Yes I know there's a movie - the book was much better)

One thing I would offer up, but is a bit off topic: Military service in exchange for citizenship (ie. give the US 4 years and get your citizenship upon completion of obligation). I think military service would be an excellent way for someone who wants US Citizenship to show loyalty to his/her new country. Of course this can be used against us (think sleeper agents) but the benefits may far outweigh the risks.

Posted by: Paper_Tiger at November 20, 2006 11:19 AM

Good idea, Charlie. But only if every congressman's, senator's, cabinet member's, and president's children, male and female, are required to spend four years in the enlisted ranks, and the sons and daughters of every person registered as a democrat as of November 7, 2006 are required to serve four years. And,of course, there will be no congressional inquiries allowed on behalf of any draftee.

Posted by: St. Thor at November 20, 2006 12:03 PM

No bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country.
George S. Patton

This is the essence of why Rep Rangel is wrong.

Our military is more effective and more capable than it has ever been in its history. The truth of this is demonstrated in the casualty rates which suggest there are 19-25 jihadi fighters killed for every one of our soldiers. This is because, among other things, we have learned the lessons Patton tried to teach us. We now use information and technology to project incredibly effective force against our enemies rather than using masses of men. But to do that, we need bright, well educated, well trained, and motivated professional warriors. We have that with our all volunteer military.

Rep Rangel is demonstrating a failure of imagination which makes it impossible to see beyond his own experience. Just as John Kerry is stuck in Viet Nam where (in his mind) all our soldiers were poor and uneducated, Rep Rangel is stuck in Korea where our troops were overrun by huge masses of Chinese and North Koreans. We fought those wars with the military we had. But, I would guarantee that had our military leaders been given the option, they would have preferred our current smaller - but more capable military.

The draft would destroy this capability and would only ensure that more American soldiers would die. And that's just dumb.

Posted by: Spike72AFA at November 20, 2006 12:32 PM

This should interesting. Today Nancy Pelosi said they ARE NOT considering the draft any time soon, so this should make for some entertaining sparring for the media between her and Rangle... Cindy Sheehan must be having a fit over this...let's see how long it takes her to spin it around so it will sound like Bush's idea...

Posted by: Marie at November 20, 2006 02:32 PM

We don't need a draft, but universal military training requiring everyone to serve 2 years. I agree with Tammy and Malkin. People would huff and puff at first, but after the positive results would do away with that. And not only would it help reverse the effects of years of leftist brainwashing in the schools and the culture, it would free a lot of young, motivated people from the grip of their fearful families.

I know a retired Naval officer who runs a JROTC program and he says the kids are great! Smart, disciplined, and motivated, but their parents constantly discourage them by projecting their own fears onto the kids. I'm ashamed to say it has happened in my own family. In my generation there were 5 of us who served and now there are none... at a time of war. It's a shame. And the one young cousin of mine who wanted to join the Marines had to battle his parents over it. They promised him they would buy him a car if would stay home. Can you imagine?
---He has yet to join.

Posted by: Tink at November 20, 2006 06:11 PM

By Category

By Month

Rangel Wants the Draft

Comments

Post a comment