Rep. Rangel Will Seek to Reinstate Draft

Associated Press

Quote:

---

WASHINGTON (AP) - 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.

Rep. Charles Rangel, D-N.Y., said Sunday he sees his idea as a way to deter politicians from launching wars and to bolster U.S. troop levels 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.

---

I just don't get his philosophy at all.

Rep Rangel has been pushing this type of legislation since at least 2001. Everytime the republicans want to make the democrats look bad they dredge up his legislation amending and instituting the draft. It's a basic FUD tactic. His original statements make sense in context. As in other discussions the US military is primarily made up of rural youth who are fairly well educated and hopelessly middle class. Senator Rangel wants to force the the service of the elite and urban along with the middle class. Having read some more Clausewitz I have to agree. When the military is an elite class under represented in the populace governance by the populace is impossible and freedom hinges on the doldrums of disinterest. I know the military does not necesarily desire nor wish a draft. Yet the military is foreign policy in action and those who understand it can make learned decisions.

He doesn't really have one. This is one of those political grandstanding stunts (in my view) being pulled by someone who most likely doesn't understand how the draft works and wants to use it to make political hay.

The draft that he's dreaming of never really existed (there were always exemptions and such, and if he seriously thinks they won't exist in the future he's dreaming...and I'm sure he'd be careful to write some in to protect his kids and grandkids), and it certainly didn't stop LBJ from digging deeper and deeper into Vietnam.

Discussions of policy should come from Congress (both houses), NOT though some phony draft dreamed up to "spark" discussion.

Ok...off the soapbox now...:o

In response to selil, who posted while I was ranting...;-), I would have to point out that the US military (with the single exception of the period between World War 2 and the end of the draft) has never looked like mainstream America. I would also argue that our government is packed with elites who bear very little resemblance to those they govern. Nothing prevented folks like Rangel from volunteering. Nothing prevents his children from doing the same. And nothing prevents those in Congress or the other branches from learning about the military and its function in society. I always find discussions of the draft to be a Trojan horse for some other agenda these days.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Culpeper

I just don't get his philosophy at all.

---

That is part of every conscript vs professional debate. If your strategy is defence at home than you have conscripts (gives you bigger manpower pool and everybody goes through military training so they can be insurgents). If you plan to fight your wars away from home you have professionals as they are better trained and are there because they want to be.

In the past rule of thumb is that when you use consript armies away from home (specially for longer conflicts) morale starts to drop while not so with professionals (not always, though).

Two things:

1. Reading Clausewitz is a lot like reading the bible. You have to put him in historical context or you are likely to make fundamentally incorrect conclusions. You must always temper the Prussian's thoughts with the fact that he lived in nineteenth century Europe. He is not always relevant to modern society or the contemporary battlefield.

2. Rangel keeps missing the point. Drafting societies "elites" has never stopped policymakers from making the decision to use force; his premise is just wrong.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by selil

Rep Rangel has been pushing this type of legislation since at least 2001. Everytime the republicans want to make the democrats look bad they dredge up his legislation amending and instituting the draft. It's a basic FUD tactic. His original statements make sense in context. As in other discussions the US military is primarily made up of rural youth who are fairly well educated and hopelessly middle class. Senator Rangel wants to force the the service of the elite and urban along with the middle class. Having read some more Clausewitz I have to agree. When the military is an elite class under represented in the populace governance by the populace is impossible and freedom hinges on the doldrums of disinterest. I know the military does not necesarily desire nor wish a draft. Yet the military is foreign policy in action and those who understand it can make learned decisions.

---

It's some of the elite and urban who are the root of disciplinary problems within our military as it is. Although a draft may be a short-term band-aid for a manpower crisis (is there one), I'd rather have a volunteer next to me in a fighting hole.

A draft may or may not be good for the service, but I can tell you (in the Army anyway) a draft would make basic leadership far more challenging for many officers and NCOs. The touchy-feely crap, like time out cards at Basic Training (NOT at Infantry basic) would have to go right out the window. And doctrine would need to catch up with the fact that soldiers are no longer dumb podunk farm boys like in World War 2. Soldiers today are vastly better educated, tech-savvy, and clued in. Go ahead and try to BS a soldier today and see what happens. Oh sure, a new private may not know where to buy chemlight batteries, but he can tell when a leader is BSing him or coddling him. And what we today would call a "rural" person would be an "urban" one back then.

So, is there a difference of opinion when it is universal service versus a draft? Considering many of the countries that require everybody to serve in the military for some amount of time just because we don't do it doesn't mean it is a bad (or good) idea. Is it the idea of the lottery (draft) or the idea of forced servitude that causes issues?

22 Nov 06, NY Daily News:

Quote:

---

The question of whether we need a universal military draft will be important as long as this country is placing thousands of young men and women in harm's way in Iraq. As long as Americans are being shipped off to war, then everyone should be vulnerable, not just those who, because of economic circumstances, are attracted by lucrative enlistment bonuses and educational incentives.

Even before the first bomb was dropped, before the first American casualty, I have opposed the war in Iraq. I continue to believe that decision-makers would never have supported the invasion if more of them had family members in line for deployment.

---

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/idea...p-398444c.html

This seems so well appropriate to the discussion.

http://d.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/uc/2.../ldb061120.gif

http://d.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/uc/2.../ldb061121.gif

http://d.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/uc/2.../ldb061122.gif

Selil

Home run!

Best

Tom

Too bad Gary Larson of Far Side is retired

Hi everyone,

While I am hardly Charles Moskos, prior to the invasion of Iraq, I did a piece in 2003 for HNN on Rangel's earlier suggestion that a draft be reinstated.

"Why We Should Consider Bringing Back the Draft"

I'm ambivalent about conscription, as it will not be a magic bullet for our military and strategic problems but it is something that should be considered in combination with other approaches ( like simply raising new divisions of volunteers in the ground forces).

Aside from the question of utility, as a serious infringement upon personal liberty, the American public will only accept a draft if they see a clear and direct need for one. I'm highly skeptical that there is sufficient trust in the government or a sense of urgency in the public mind today, to make conscription politically acceptable.

Many of the advantages to our current situation that would have accrued from a draft required implementation circa 2002, not in 2007. To an extent, this is a debate among politicians about who can close the barn door with the most flourish.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by zenpundit

Aside from the question of utility, as a serious infringement upon personal liberty, the American public will only accept a draft if they see a clear and direct need for one. I'm highly skeptical that there is sufficient trust in the government or a sense of urgency in the public mind today, to make conscription politically acceptable.

---

And people would never accept the largest increase in governmental growth since the New Deal, horrific and substantial changes in personal liberties, wide spread monitoring of civilian communications, in specific letters security letters in lieu of warrants, the DMCA, no fly lists with names like "Robert Johnson", strip searches at airports by pedophilic TSA employees, and shooting of 94 year old women by narcotics agents breaking down doors in the middle of the night. The people would never accept anything like that...

When can I buy a cup of coffee ZenPundit I'm a few miles down the road from you and know this really great BBQ join in da region.

Is there something in the water? Why is everybody all mean and nasty this morming?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by slapout9

Is there something in the water? Why is everybody all mean and nasty this morming?

---

I was trying to be tongue in cheek... Did I miss again?

selil, no I guess it is me, I was reading about Fabius and then started going through the threads and wondered what was going on. I guess I am still in shock,Alabama lost to Auburn for the 5th time this past weekend.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by zenpundit

Hi everyone,

While I am hardly Charles Moskos, prior to the invasion of Iraq, I did a piece in 2003 for HNN on Rangel's earlier suggestion that a draft be reinstated.

"Why We Should Consider Bringing Back the Draft"

I'm ambivalent about conscription, as it will not be a magic bullet for our military and strategic problems but it is something that should be considered in combination with other approaches ( like simply raising new divisions of volunteers in the ground forces).

Aside from the question of utility, as a serious infringement upon personal liberty, the American public will only accept a draft if they see a clear and direct need for one. I'm highly skeptical that there is sufficient trust in the government or a sense of urgency in the public mind today, to make conscription politically acceptable.

Many of the advantages to our current situation that would have accrued from a draft required implementation circa 2002, not in 2007. To an extent, this is a debate among politicians about who can close the barn door with the most flourish.

---

I agree and have said as much here on other threads. At a minimum we need a debate that goes beyond what we've had so far on what constitutes a long war and what constitutes Amrcican commitment to that war. The Chief of Staff of the Army--not calling for a draft--has echoed that theme in rasing issues of defense spending, manning, and readiness.

For most who even remember a draft first hand, the draft was as it ended in the Vietnam conflict. Too many simply point to that peculiar draft as the definitive model for a draft today and the discussion immediately becomes one of how abysmal the results were for the US military in general and the Army in particular. For those I offer the obvious rebuttal that we won WWII with a draft. More pointedly in regards to American society's reaction to a draft, I would point out that the intial draft of 12 months occurred in 1940 before we entered WWII and that FDR took the politically risky step in the summer of 1941 of keeping those trained draftees on active duty beyond their 12 months. Of those extended who protested the decision, many painted OHIO on their barracks walls, meaning Over the Hill in October. Of course, Dember 7, 1941 changed everything, sort of. I say sort of because if you look at war termination in Europe, post victory discontent among US forces in Europe was a problem and riots did occur. Why? My read on it was the government and the War department did a poor job explaining the need to keep troops there after the final shots had been fired.

Best
Tom

No offense taken selil. I think the difference between your examples, many of which highlight governmental incompetence as well as public passivity, are seen by most Americans as either aberrant exceptions or inconveniences. An increase in temperature of a few degrees. A draft for a two-year hitch ( with or without national service alternatives) is jumping into a scalding bath with both feet.

We could have coffee sometime. Which BBQ place were you referring to BTW ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by zenpundit

Aside from the question of utility, as a serious infringement upon personal liberty, the American public will only accept a draft if they see a clear and direct need for one.

---

Out of curiosity, what do you think will "make" US public "see the need for draft"? I mean, global conflict of scale, intensity and duration of WW1 & 2 are unlikely and (if I understood your post correctly) you don't think that GWOT needs it.

The odds of conscription being reinstituted in the US are so remote as to make buying a lottery look like a sure win. Rep. Rangel, in my opinion, trots out his draft argument when he feels the need for a few more column inches of type or to hear his name mentioned and his sound bites quoted. The arguments for and against universal conscription are well known and make for great discussions over beer or at a gathering of sophomore PoliSci V. Philo majors.

At the end of the day one conscription is used to fill the ranks that would other wise stand empty. The US does not have a problem meeting the services end strength manning requirements. If congress budgeted additional funds for 5000 more Marines, we would be able to find 5000 more Marines. No need for a draft, at least to solve this issue.

Quote:

---

"Out of curiosity, what do you think will "make" US public "see the need for draft"? I mean, global conflict of scale, intensity and duration of WW1 & 2 are unlikely and (if I understood your post correctly) you don't think that GWOT needs it."

---

Need and political acceptance are two different issues.

The military's need is for increased manpower in the Army and Marines generally and in critical, highly trained, specialties where there are shortages. Say, for example, certain language skills. Most people across the political spectrum, though not all, agree that such a need exists.

Filling that need is a question of costs or trade-offs. The draft would entail real costs, not simply provide a ready supply of less expensive manpower so Congress should look at possibly a combination of options, including outside the box ideas, instead of eliminating anything a priori. It may very well be that a new draft isn't the best way to go in terms of utility and I think public support would be lacking right now.

Speaking of which, what would make the public " see" the need? Frankly, a military disaster on par with a second 9/11 and nothing less.

Bush could have had the Army and Marines expanded in the wake of 9/11 by issuing a call for volunteers. Congress would have given him a draft, had he asked or nearly anything else at that particular moment in time. Public political support hinges on mass emotional reactions to conflict at the moral level, not statistical or factual arguments. Factually, the U.S. needed a large military build-up prior to Pearl Harbor but FDR, as Tom pointed out, could only muster support for a barebones effort by a single vote in Congress. On Dec. 8, FDR could ask for, and get, the moon.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by zenpundit

We could have coffee sometime. Which BBQ place were you referring to BTW ?

---

I was thinking Wagners Ribs, in Porter. It's a bar with some of the best Q' in the world. I always see IllAnoyans come down to our seedy backwater community to troll with the blue collar crowd.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by zenpundit

Need and political acceptance are two different issues.

---

I know. I was asking under what circumstances (or events) would US public support the draft because they would think it's necessary. Sorry if I wasn't clear.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by zenpundit

The military's need is for increased manpower in the Army and Marines generally and in critical, highly trained, specialties where there are shortages. Say, for example, certain language skills. Most people across the political spectrum, though not all, agree that such a need exists.

Filling that need is a question of costs or trade-offs. The draft would entail real costs, not simply provide a ready supply of less expensive manpower so Congress should look at possibly a combination of options, including outside the box ideas, instead of eliminating anything a priori. It may very well be that a new draft isn't the best way to go in terms of utility and I think public support would be lacking right now.

---

OK. Do you think it's feasible that a combination of draft/volunteer armed forces would come along? Certain slots are filled by long term professionals (pilots, Marines, airborne....) and others by conscripts who serve outside US only if they volunteer to do so?

also now Arab/Farsi/.... speakers have to be persuaded to join, with draft they would get in armed forces anyway and it would be only a matter of persuading them to stay in. Might be easier.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by zenpundit

Speaking of which, what would make the public " see" the need? Frankly, a military disaster on par with a second 9/11 and nothing less.

---

OK, that was my original question. Thanks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by zenpundit

Bush could have had the Army and Marines expanded in the wake of 9/11 by issuing a call for volunteers. Congress would have given him a draft, had he asked or nearly anything else at that particular moment in time. Public political support hinges on mass emotional reactions to conflict at the moral level, not statistical or factual arguments. Factually, the U.S. needed a large military build-up prior to Pearl Harbor but FDR, as Tom pointed out, could only muster support for a barebones effort by a single vote in Congress. On Dec. 8, FDR could ask for, and get, the moon.

---

But do you think it would last a long term? Assuming there is a draft and Iraq is invaded in march 03 anyway do you think that people (troops, families....) would say "Hey, we agreed to draft to fight terrorism but Iraq is something else"?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by zenpundit

The military's need is for increased manpower in the Army and Marines generally and in critical, highly trained, specialties where there are shortages.

---

I agree that there is a need for increased manning levels in critical specialties. However addressing that need is a function of the individual services and of congress. One can not mass produce competent linguists any more than one can mass produce Special Forces. Again, if we need, and I believe that we do, additional intel, linguists, FAOs, and the like it can be addressed using the current volunteer force system. The individual services need to identify the need and congress needs to legislate the billets and fund them.

Keep in mind that there is a liberal perspective to raising the idea of a draft.
** First, if a Democrat supports it he can argue that he's not soft on defense.
** Second, from a liberal perspective it makes great social sense because we can get the rich involved in the nation's defense - social justice.
** Third, if a draft is implemented it can make it theoretically more difficult to go to war because it affects more people.