American males when they turn 18 already have to register for the draft by registering for selective service. We don't have a draft but many of the mechanisms are in place in case one was instituted. I moderately support the draft for the reasons that Rangell cited and even though I'm getting up towards the top of Rangell's draft age if drafted I would go. Freedom in personal decisions is very important but I think we need to understand that war is a collective national burden. A volunteer army while great for professionalism too often allows supporters of the war when questioned about the treatment that our troops get say, "Well they volunteered and should've known what they were getting into." In other words to thrust the problems with the hardship of military life back onto the troops since they should've known better. It also limits the burden of the service to fewer people and divorces the military from the rest of society since the volunteer force is considered by critics, or even supporters who don't serve, as a separate group of people. Those given I don't think a draft has much of a chance of passing the House or even Rangell's committee.
I see what he is doing, but politically its kind of stupid because not enough people will read past the second line and realize that its done to act as a safeguard for reckless warmongering, as shown by the thread starter.
I think mandatory service is an excellent idea. Another way to go which would give more freedom of choice in the matter would be to tie voting rights to service. That way, people who didn't want to serve could opt out, but the people who stood for their country would be the ones that had political control - this could also help solve the problem of the rich and powerful not serving (although you would still have to work against them getting put into all of the cushy jobs).
This report surprised me (I know it's from Heritage, but unless the demographic data is false, the interpretation seems to be credible): As support for the war in Iraq has declined, criti cism of the war has translated into criticism of our nation’s troops, at least by way of criticizing the quality of wartime recruits. The November 2005 Heritage Foundation study found that recruits enlisting at the start of the war were of high quality and in many respects comparable to the youth population. This updated report’s examination of three years of wartime recruits shows that recruit quality has not declined. The estimate for mean household income of recruits increased every year from 2003 through 2005. The poorest areas continue to be underrep resented, while middle-class areas are overrepre sented. Although the richest income brackets are underrepresented, the difference between the recruit and population proportions for these brack ets is less than 0.25 percent. Overall, the distribu tion for recruit household incomes is very similar to that of the youth population. The military continues to enforce educational standards in its recruiting process. The high school graduation rate among recruits is higher than it is among the national youth population. While the active-duty enlisted ranks have fewer college grad uates than the comparable civilian population, DOD annual updates on population representation indicate that many who join the military are taking advantage of educational opportunities while serv ing and that many others continue their education after completing their enlistment period. The enlisted ranks are not disproportionately composed of minorities. Whites serve in numbers roughly proportional to their representation in the population. While blacks continue to be overrepre sented, their representation has decreased during the wartime years and is much closer to being pro portional in 2005 than it was in 2003. Additionally, recruiters are not targeting black-concentrated areas in an effort to exploit the black population. Wartime recruits come more from rural areas, particularly from the South. However, many states outside of the South, such as Alaska and Montana, continue to have strong proportional representa tion. Areas classified as entirely urban are strongly underrepresented compared to areas with increased rural concentrations, all of which were overrepresented. Overall, the wartime recruits are more similar than dissimilar to their civilian counterparts. The all-volunteer force displays near proportional rep resentation of income backgrounds. Whites serve in approximate proportion to their population, although representation of minority groups varies. Recruits must meet educational standards, and the military provides resources for furthering educa tion to those who might not otherwise have the opportunity to attend four-year colleges. Although rural representation is disproportional, the military offers the opportunity to gain new skills and enter industries that are not available in rural areas. With regard to income, education, race, and regional background, the all-volunteer force is repre sentative of our nation and meets standards set by Congress and the Department of Defense. In con trast to the patronizing slanders of antiwar critics, recruit quality is increasing as the war in Iraq contin ues. Although recent recruiting goals have been dif*ficult to meet, reenlistment is strong and recruit quality remains high. No evidence supports argu ments for reinstating the draft or altering recruiting policies to achieve more equitable representation. That's the summary conclusion. Full report, data & whatnot here: http://www.heritage.org/Research/NationalSecurity/cda06-09.cfm
The Swiss never fight in anything so its really not that big a deal to join their army. Also, Switzerland is a direct democracy so voting rights there are a much bigger deal than here.
I agree, Rangel is just stirring some **** to make a point. If rich folk's kids were at risk, the nation would be more cautious about committing US soldiers to harm's way, probably yes to Afghanistan and no to Iraq. I don't think anybody really wants a drugged up, officer fragging army of conscripts unless there is a real threat to the nations borders.
Well, there you have it, voters. Democrats want to reinstate the draft. Man, I love their new visibility! Beating them will be this much easier in 2008!!!
Key Democrats oppose renewing military draft Mon Nov 20, 2006 2:27 PM ET By Richard Cowan WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Leading Democrats who soon will control the legislative agenda in the Congress rejected on Monday a colleague's call for reinstatement of the U.S. military draft. "I don't favor it," said Sen. Carl Levin of Michigan, who is set to chair the Senate Armed Services Committee when Democrats take over both houses of Congress from Republicans in January. "I don't think we need it," added Levin, whose panel oversees military programs. He spoke to reporters after meeting with Robert Gates, President George W. Bush's choice to replace retiring Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. The top two Democrats in the U.S. House of Representatives also voiced their opposition to a plan being pushed by Rep. Charles Rangel, a New York Democrat, for drafting soldiers into the army for the first time since 1973. The idea is not supported by Republicans either. "We did not include that" in legislative plans for early next year, said Democratic Rep. Steny Hoyer of Maryland, who will be House majority leader when the new Congress convenes in January. Incoming House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California noted her opposition to the draft in remarks to reporters. She said Rangel was trying to underscore that the U.S. war effort should be a "shared sacrifice" and his legislation was "a way to make that point." Rangel, who is in line to chair the House Ways and Means Committee next year, has renewed his call for the draft, saying the war in Iraq is being fought by American soldiers who disproportionately are from low-income families and minorities. Over the weekend, Rangel said he would seek passage next year of the universal draft legislation he has long sought. "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 on CBS' "Face the Nation" on Sunday. As Ways and Means panel chairman, Rangel will have a significant role in U.S. tax and health-care policy. That post will not necessarily give Rangel an effective forum for pursuing his military draft legislation, Pelosi observed. Previewing next year's legislative agenda, Pelosi emphasized pocketbook issues, saying Democrats will try to ease the "middle-class squeeze." "We want to take the country in a new direction, not just for privileged America," Pelosi said in a jab at Bush and his fellow Republicans who had been in control of Congress. Among Democrats' top priorities are increasing the minimum wage, expanding aid for college education and further lowering prescription drug costs for senior citizens. http://today.reuters.com/news/artic...0T192723Z_01_N20280714_RTRUKOC_0_US-DRAFT.xml
How is it not the point? I don't get the difference between the situations. I do, however, applaud your choice to be a firefighter. That kind of selflessness is much needed in today's world.
Oh please! It's not like he fights building fires or house fires! You know? The important kind?! He's a tree hugging forest fire fighter. Dam tree savior
