Americans would have to sign up for a new military draft after turning 18 if the incoming chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee has his way. New York Democratic Rep. Charles Rangel said Sunday he sees his idea as a way to deter politicians from launching wars. He believes a draft would bolster U.S. troop levels that are currently insufficient to cover potential future action in Iran, North Korea and Iraq. "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. Rangel, a veteran of the Korean War who has unsuccessfully sponsored legislation on conscription in the past, said he will propose a measure early next year. In 2003, he proposed a draft covering people age 18 to 26. This year, he offered a plan to mandate military service for men and women between age 18 and 42. It went nowhere in the Republican-led Congress. Democrats will control the House and Senate come January because of their victories in the November 7 mid-term election. At a time when some lawmakers are urging the military to send more troops to Iraq, "I don't see how anyone can support the war and not support the draft," said Rangel.
New York Democratic Rep. Charles Rangel said Sunday he sees his idea as a way to deter politicians from launching wars. He believes a draft would bolster U.S. troop levels that are currently insufficient to cover potential future action in Iran, North Korea and Iraq.
"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.
Rangel, a veteran of the Korean War who has unsuccessfully sponsored legislation on conscription in the past, said he will propose a measure early next year.
In 2003, he proposed a draft covering people age 18 to 26. This year, he offered a plan to mandate military service for men and women between age 18 and 42. It went nowhere in the Republican-led Congress.
Democrats will control the House and Senate come January because of their victories in the November 7 mid-term election.
At a time when some lawmakers are urging the military to send more troops to Iraq, "I don't see how anyone can support the war and not support the draft," said Rangel.
Rangel is right. It is a deep injustice that some portions of the population -- overwhelmingly for economic reasons -- are forced to shoulder the burden of providing defense to the U.S., while other portions of the population -- overwhelmingly for economic reasons -- get a free ride in terms of defending the country.
Being under 42, I would still be eligible for the draft, and that is fine with me. If I disagree with a war I were to be drafted into, then I would simply refuse to enlist and accept the consequences. Truth unfolds in time through a communal process.
The real problem is a psychotic executive branch, which - as I understand it - has ignored the usual rules about declaring war and gone right ahead and started a war (sic) without oversight or accountability.
The lack of oversight and accountability, together with the delusional beliefs of a unitary executive, are the real problems. If those are solved there's no need for a draft, because there isn't going to be a war to draft anyone into.
If the situation changed in the future and a real threat appeared, a draft could always be organised to order. But instituting a draft without a real threat just to score a political point - and Iraq certainly isn't a real threat - makes no sense at all.
But I am afraid it would be irresponsibly* wishful thinking to rely only on a "commitment"/"directed effort" to solve these and to trust that their resolution will prevent further militaristic madness down the road.
That is why changing the stakes of the game would help. In two ways:
(1) As Rangel says, concentrate the minds of would-be war-mongerers.
and
(2) Arrange matters so that if the American people is ever gullible/stupid/vindictive enough again to follow its leaders into a disastrous military adventure, then the price of that mistake should be much more fairly distributed among the entire population.
* I say "irresponsibly" because "Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me." Truth unfolds in time through a communal process.
Militarisation affects the entire tone of a culture, and its a dangerous thing to do in a culture that's already so heavily militarised.
If such a draft were in place before Bush II appeared, I can't see any way that it would have made Iraq less of a fiasco. And I can see a lot of ways it could have made things much worse. Because with a pre-existing draft it's likely the US army would now be in Iran, Lebanon, Syria - and probably also Milton Keynes. And Paris.
And as for making everyone fight - deferments happened before, and you can be sure the rich and powerful would find ways to make them happen again.
It may just be me, but during my 4+ years in California I came away with the impression that the US has a very militaristic society and culture. And it begins with the large amount of veterans one interacts with in civilian life. Those whom the Gods wish to destroy They first make mad. -- Euripides
While I think that is a good point, I would go one step further: If and when the government goes psychotic again in the future (God save us all), it will be immoral for Americans to let things stand in a situation where only "career" military personnel are forced to put their life and limb on the line to carry out such military policies.
Yes, these professionals "volunteered" for the job. But I believe that a significant number of these volunteers signed up because they had few other if any attractive job opportunities. That may be a false myth, and I welcome being corrected on it. However, the U.S. Defense Department's own 1998 Population Representation in the Military Services report suggests that many recruits enroll for lack of more attractive economic opportunities:
Because the U.S. economy has enjoyed a spate of economic success the past few years, with low unemployment rates and increased job opportunities for more and varied groups, the supply of quality military applicants has been tight. The economic detractors from recruiting are compounded by growing college enrollment rates among youth of enlistment age. Without the draft to press youth into service, the military must compete for qualified recruits. While a military career, or even one term of service, offers many tangible and intangible benefits to include pay, job training, educational opportunities, adventure, discipline, and pride, it carries significant burdens not the least of which include separation from family, danger, and other routine hardships. <...> Without the draft to call varied segments of society into service, the over- or underrepresentation of various ethnic/racial and economic subgroups in the military is to be expected. <...> The military may find that as Blacks have more economic options available to them, fewer numbers may enlist. <...> Because the military relies exclusively on volunteers for its personnel, it must recognize and work with these societal trends. Understanding the economic opportunities available to different groups, the population projections of ethnic and racial minorities, and various other population trends will provide the military with some of the information necessary to understand its future recruiting and personnel needs.
<...>
Without the draft to call varied segments of society into service, the over- or underrepresentation of various ethnic/racial and economic subgroups in the military is to be expected.
The military may find that as Blacks have more economic options available to them, fewer numbers may enlist.
Because the military relies exclusively on volunteers for its personnel, it must recognize and work with these societal trends. Understanding the economic opportunities available to different groups, the population projections of ethnic and racial minorities, and various other population trends will provide the military with some of the information necessary to understand its future recruiting and personnel needs.
Before this asinine war, I would never have believed that the U.S. could be so demented as to get involved in another military adventure like this. But now that it has demonstrated otherwise, it is only right to prepare for the grim likelihood that brutes and boneheads in the upper echelons of power will yet again try to move the U.S. into war, and if they succeed, then the costs of that mistake should not be borne disproportionately by those unfortunate enough to have little choice but to join the military in order to obtain a decent* livelihood.
Once such arrangements have been put in place -- i.e. the institution of a draft that would make all able-bodied young men and women eligible regardless of education, wealth, connections to power, etc. -- hopefully that will concentrate the minds of any would-be warmongerers in the future. However, even if they succeed in going forward with war anyway, well then it won't just be the poor and otherwise socioeconomically disadvantaged who will have to pay for the mistakes of our militaristic leaders (and those of us who supported them.)
*(Although even that is subject to debate.) Truth unfolds in time through a communal process.
It is a deep injustice that some portions of the population -- overwhelmingly for economic reasons -- are forced to shoulder the burden of providing defense to the U.S., while other portions of the population -- overwhelmingly for economic reasons -- get a free ride in terms of defending the country.
But we all know that the rich white kids would go into the National Guard so's they can shoot troublemaking students, whilst all the poor kids would do the dying in foreign lands. I don't see how you can end the ability of the rich to apply influence and finesse their kids into safety. Can you stop the next Cheney being too busy to fight ?
No, you need more skepticism about believing that pre-emptive miltaristic adventures constitutes defense. Having such an over-whelming military machine along with so many corporates that have a vested interest in that machine requiring re-orders, predisposes the US towards solving its problems forcibly.
Instead of questioning the wisdom of destroying other countries to win hearts and minds, the US pours concern into avoiding injuries. This makes the military even more dependent upon hi-tech remote control munitions with overwhelming explosive capability. All of which just makes the damage, suffering and injustice inflicted on the target population all the worse, particularly in light of the incredibly crappy targetting.
Just how proportionate is it to destroy a town to compensate for killing 4 contractors ? Or flatten a block of flats, killing everybody inside, cos one insurgent was seen to run into it ?
You still need to have peace at the end of the war, so you might as well plan for it beforehand. In fact it#s better to get there without the war. But it's not as much fun, it doesn't look as good on CNN. Journalists don't get to play "embedded soldier". Peace just ain't so glamorous is it ? There's no profit in it. keep to the Fen Causeway
No university deferments. Period. Even for so-called "elite" students.
And yes, the most powerful and most connected will still manage to save some of their own, but if you can drastically increase the number in the bulk of the population who could potentially see active combat, I think you'll get the
more skepticism about believing that pre-emptive miltaristic adventures constitutes defense
you asked for.
And beyond that, you spread the burden of preserving "national security" more evenly across all members of society.
We ask that the costs of healthcare -- which are overwhelmingly financial in nature -- be spread across the population. By the same logic, the costs of national security -- which are both financial AND "bodily" -- should be spread across the population. Truth unfolds in time through a communal process.
Vietnam went on for a decade.
What about conscietous objectors, BTW? *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
Conscientious objectors in the 1980's and early 1990's played a big role in the end of the draft in Spain and the transition to professional, volunteer armed forces. And there wasn't even a war on. Those whom the Gods wish to destroy They first make mad. -- Euripides
As someone who nearly became one, I am happy that Europe is increasingly abandoning the draft. *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
Now, how could you be "unsubmissively" anti-militaristic and also an interventionist? Those whom the Gods wish to destroy They first make mad. -- Euripides
Apatriotism another factor: intervention as international enterprise, vs. drafted army is national. *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
I went to university in the US. For my undergraduate degree I had to not only take subjects in my major, and related areas, but also in history, anthropology, sociology, literature, art, or rather, I had to pick several subjects from a list of humanities, arts, and social sciences. Subject that I would have never bothered with at the university level, not because I don't find them interesting, but because under a system where it would be allowed but not required I would have felt compelled to concentrate on what directly mattered to my future occupation.
(For all the terrible things I have to say about the US, I really, really like their broader undergraduate curriculum. Going to university there was quite simply great. Maybe not true for all schools??)
