Rep. Rangel Will Seek to Reinstate Draft

[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.

[selil]

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.

[slapout9]

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

[selil]

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?

[slapout9]

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.

[Tom Odom]

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

[zenpundit]

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 ?

[selil]

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.

[aktarian]

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.

[Mondor]

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.

[zenpundit]

"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.

[aktarian]

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.

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.

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.

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"?

[Mondor]

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.

[Ray Levesque]

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.