Back in 2003, Democratic Representative Charles Rangel introduced a bill to reinstate the draft. On last Sunday’s Face the Nation, he reiterated his call, saying:
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
While Rangel may be dead serious about re-introducing such a bill, the likelihood of it going anywhere is nil. Nevertheless, it seems that this is the topic de jour so in response to a reader’s request, here’s my take on it.
I am old enough to remember when we did have a draft. From my recollection, those who served in the last stages of it were disporportionately the poor and the minorities. Like our president, I had a history teacher in junior high school talk about how he avoided it by joinging the NG. I distinctly remember him saying that NG stood for “Not Going.” Many disappeared across the border into Canada to avoid it. My own brother left the area to avoid the draft.
I enlisted in the Army Reserves in 1979 as a way of supplementing my meager resources while in college. Then, as now, not everyone who wants to join can. Working at the Army recruiting station that summer, we tutored potential recruits so that they could pass the entrance exam.
So while I understand the reason that Rangel says he wants to reinstitute the draft – to make the burden of military service more equitable – our history has shown that is not the case. So I see nothing to be gained by reinstituting a draft.
VIVIAN J. PAIGE | All Politics is Local 
“I am old enough to remember when we did have a draft. From my recollection, those who served in the last stages of it were disporportionately the poor and the minorities.”
Right, and one of the reasons Rangel sites is because he thinks only poor people are signing up. His logic seems extremely backwards to me.
I agree. Rangel is using old information. I don’t think he has looked at the stats recently.
If this is actually the same bill as his 2003 bill (his web site is useless), there are no deferrals, both men and women are included, and if military service is rejected, two years serving in some “homeland security” capacity is required.
But none of that is really the point. The point is the conversation.
I also think Charlie Rangel has introduced this to get a dialogue of fairness started.
It is too easy for chickenhawks to promote something they don’t have to participate in.
Maybe the world would be a more peaceful place if the USA did bring back the draft…..IF the poor had other avenues to obtain health care and an education I think the military would not be the choice of many.
Personally, I hate the idea of war, drafts, etc….
Buzz….Buzz….
He just wants to get people talking about the disproportionate burden carried by some in our society. I’ve got three kids between the ages of 20 and 15 and have no desire to see a draft. Other countries have required service for two years for all citizens and it seems to benefit them and their countries. When I lived overseas I met several French people working in West Africa in various capacities and everyone was benefitting from the arrangement. However, I just don’t see Americans agreeing to this and don’t think it will ever come to pass, no matter how beneficial to the participants and society it may be. I do know that my 18 year old son told me if it ever came to a mandatory service time of two years he would indeed go into the Army because he believes that’s the least “wimpy” alternative.
The draft is a different thing that the service requirement of nations such as Switzerland and Austria. In a draft, those who are picked have to go. In mandatory service, everyone has to go. I would prefer two-year mandatory service, as in Switzerland, after which everyone is part of a “ready reserve” with his own rifle and ammunition, with which he must requalify every year. (There is even a range in Maryland to which Swiss citizens stationed in DC can go for their requalification test.)
At this point, the official line of the U.S. military is that they do not want a draft, because you get a lot of people that don’t want to be there, and think it’s unfair. A two-year service requirement need not be military. We need people for border patrol and port security, too, which include cargo ship inspections. With millions of able-bodied service members, we could drop an inspection team on a ship two days out of port. A million armed young men on our southern border would go a long way to stopping illegal immigration, too.
Carla, tell your son to look into the Marine Corps if he wants “non-wimpy.” If he REALLY wants to be one of the best, tell him to be a Navy SEAL.
Jack, I hardly think arming every single American will *EVER* be a good thing to do. Like I wrote in my own blog, instead of using strong arm, nazi like tactics to FORCE people into mandatory “service,” why don’t we actually pay people going into the military (or in the border patrol) decent wages, enough so they can support a family.
And another point I want to make is, OTHER COUNTRIES like Israel use a draft because, well, they’re ALWAYS at war to protect their existence, and they don’t have NEARLY as large a population as the U.S.
Terry, why do you consider American citizens inferior to the Swiss?
On your other point, I fully support higher wages for our troops.
Israel, I believe, is mandatory service, not a draft. Switzerland, if I recall correctly, has not been at war since Napoleon.
“Terry, why do you consider American citizens inferior to the Swiss?”
Wow, I’m not trying to start a flame war on someone elses blog but, WHERE IN THE HELL do you get that from? Did I say anything even remotely close to that? No. A draft and mandatory service are both basically the same thing in my eyes because they’re both forcing the will of a government upon it’s own people. Count me OUT in anything even remotely close.
Besides, no way anyone is going to get me to raise a gun to another human being.
Terry
VIVIAN SAID “Rangel is using old information. I don’t think he has looked at the stats recently.”
You would think a member of Congress could get someone to get him stats from this century. He has them. He ignores them because it would ruin his argument.
What was that DNC talking point again? You are entitled to your opinion, but not your own facts?
CARLA SAID “He just wants to get people talking about the disproportionate burden carried by some in our society.”
You have drank the kool-aide… There is not a disproportionate burden. Fact is the military reflect America both by race and socio-economic stature. If you do not perceive it that way, then maybe you should wonder why you look down on those who are in the military.
Terry — Considering that having a gun in every house puts the Swiss crime rate well below the rest of Europe, why would what is good for the Swiss be bad for the Americans? Are we so inferior to the Swiss that we cannot be trusted with guns?
Would someone breaking into your house and attacking your family be enough to get you to raise a gun against another?
(BTW, “conscientious objectors” can be medics, too.)
Jack – you’ll find a gun in practically every house in Iraq and Afghanistan, too. I wouldn’t say their crime rates are very comparable to Switzerland’s. How would you explain the difference?
JACK said: “why would what is good for the Swiss be bad for the Americans?”
In that case, why don’t we just implement more socially liberal welfare policies, free healthcare and the like, like in France, and Canada that right wingers love to hate so much..
Afterall, why can’t what’s good for Canada be good for America?
Randy — what is the crime rate in Iraq and Afghanistan, anyway? (We’re talking about personal crimes, such as rape, robbery, murder, etc., not war casualties.)
Terry, what you mention has been BAD for the people of those countries. That’s why we don’t want to do them here.
That’s debatable. The fact that we don’t have affordable healthcare for MILLIONS of Americans has been just as bad for us.