http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20030107/pl_nm/arms_congress_draft_dc_1 Politics Leading Democrat Calls for Broad Military Draft Tue Jan 7, 1:34 PM ET Add Politics to My Yahoo! By Vicki Allen WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A leading Democratic lawmaker on Tuesday called for reinstituting a draft for military or alternative national service, saying political leaders would be more wary of sending troops to Iraq or other hot spots if their children were going to help do the fighting. The Bush administration quickly dismissed the idea as unnecessary and unwise. Rep. Charles Rangel of New York, top Democrat on the House of Representatives Ways and Means Committee (news - web sites), introduced a bill for compulsory military or national service for men and women, ages 18-26, without exemptions for college or graduate studies. Rangel, a decorated Korean war veteran, said a draft was needed "to achieve a full sharing of the sacrifice which will be required of the American people if the president chooses to invade Iraq" and engages in other conflicts in the war on terrorism. The current volunteer force is made up disproportionately of people from lower-income families and minorities, he said. The draft was in place from 1948 to 1973 when the U.S. converted to an all volunteer army. But all men are still required to register with the Selective Service upon reaching age 18 and federal benefits, including financial aid for college studies, are contingent upon registration. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said the administration had no plan to resume the draft, saying "there is no need for it at all," and that it would prompt an inefficient "churning" of personnel who were trained then left the military. REQUIREMENT TO SERVE But Rangel said the issue must be debated. "I believe that if those calling for war knew that their children were likely to be required to serve -- and to be placed in harm's way -- there would be more caution and greater willingness to work with the international community in dealing with Iraq," Rangel said at a news conference. Rangel, who was general counsel to the National Advisory Commission on Selective Service during the administration of President Lyndon Johnson and the Vietnam War, opposes Bush's plans for a possible attack on Iraq if it does not meet U.N. requirements to disarm. But he said he would call for bringing back a draft -- this time without college deferments -- even if he supported Bush on Iraq, saying military responsibility "should be shared by all Americans." Rangel's bill would give the president authority to set the number of people required for military service, and would require those not selected for the military to serve at least two years in a civilian post. Military service would be selected by lottery, he said. Rangel said he has picked up some co-sponsors for his measure, but had not yet talked with the new House Democratic leadership about it. In their regular press briefing, Rumsfeld and Gen. Richard Myers, chairman of the Joints Chiefs of Staff, said the current volunteer force was working well. Rumsfeld said that under the draft people were "sucked into the intake, trained for a period of months, and then went out, adding no value, no advantage, really, to the United States armed services over any sustained period of time." He also complained about the various exemptions under the last draft during the Vietnam war, which Rangel said he would close. Myers called the volunteer force "extremely well-trained and well-led troops. Any comparisons between today's force and the Vietnam force would be dramatic. There is no comparison."
Thanks, MadMax. Rangel more often than not does his own thing. Democrats would be overwhelmingly opposed to his idea. I think our military is superb. If anything, I believe they're underfunded and thought that well before 9-11. I don't think the budget for the armed forces is being spent wisely. To often weapon systems are built because of where they are constructed. Pork, in other words. Both parties are guilty of wasting funds that could be better used to increase the pay and benefits of present and retired servicemen and to fund intensive training. There is not nearly enough live-fire exercises, ammunition and servicemen and women. We need to increase the size of our military. We have come to rely too much on reserves. Both parties cut too much after the fall of the Soviet Union. If anything, the world is becoming a more dangerous place. We've budgeted another Nimitz-class aircraft carrier, for example. Many believe it makes more sense to build several smaller carriers for what the cost of one Nimitz would be. Fewer targets for the enemy and more carriers to cover more hot-spots. There are many other examples, but I just wanted to make the point that to think the majority of Democrats are against a strong military or are far-left demagogues is ludicrous. Some of you take Rush Limbaugh and his imitators far to seriously. Yes, I listen to Rush sometimes. He used to be funnier. I think if you know all points of view, it helps to understand where some folks are coming from. In some instances, it's not a very good place. (and that last comment wasn't aimed at you, MadMax)
One other thing. I think the Chinese government would be delighted if we left South Korea. Why? Think about it.
You might just be making an observation, but I don't care whether it delights China or not. It's quite simple: if the S Koreans don't want us in their country, we should show them due respect and be gone.
If the duly elected government of South Korea asks us to leave, then of course we should and shall. I don't think that will happen any time soon. I think I agree with kidrock8 on this one, although the hippie reference is a stretch. Our presence in the region is a centerpiece of our foreign policy. And it's a lot cheaper to have forces on the ground than to have carrier battle groups and Marines floating around. They supplement, and don't replace, our bases in the region.
I read that earlier, Cohen. It's a hell of a thing. I think a great deal of it is a result of North Korean propaganda and agents on the ground, combined with South Korean politicians using it to get elected. It's another case of the truth being twisted for political expediency. Happens here often enough. But I really believe the average Korean wants us there. Perhaps we can make ourselves a bit less noticeable, as was mentioned in the article, but we DO need to be there. It's in our interest and theirs.
...44.8 percent of the respondents wanted a gradual withdrawal of U.S. troops from South Korea, while only 6.3 percent wanted the troops to leave at once... Although I don't know what constitutes a 'gradual' withdrawal, looks like 51% want us out. Then you have their President elected on an anti-American platform. Seems like we have our servicemen's lives on the line and $3 billion a year to protect their country, and we can expect, what, about half of their country to be luke-warm about us being there and the other half wanting us out? Why stay? For regional stability? They're apparently ready for complete 'independence' from us. Why not let the Asian democracies 'stabilize' their own region? Lastly, if the majority really wants us to stay, don't elect a President who runs on an anti-American platform. Many of these transgressions against our soldiers are widespread; yet we don't hear about Korean politicans battling it, but purpetuating it. I'm no isolationist, but I'm sick and tired of having to be the world's policeman, incurring all of the costs and risks associated with providing 'stability', then literally getting 'spat on' by those who benefit most. Just like HS's example: We get criticized roundly for just about everything. Maybe it's time for the rest of the world to not take for granted what we clearly do in the world's interest.
