|
| | | | Rep. Charles Rangel, an influential Democratic lawmaker, on Sunday introduced a bill in Congress Tuesday to reinstate the military draft, saying fighting forces should more closely reflect the economic makeup of the nation as a way to boost U.S. troop levels and draw a broader section of the population into the military or public service.
U.S. Rep. Charles Rangel (news, bio, voting record), the incoming chairman of the House of Representatives' tax-writing committee, said he would introduce legislation to reinstate the draft as soon as the new, Democratic-controlled Congress convenes in January.
Asked on CBS' "Face the Nation" if he was still serious about the proposal for a universal draft he raised a couple of years ago, he said, "You bet your life. Underscore serious."
"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," he said.
"I don't see how anyone can support the war and not support the draft. I think to do so is hypocritical," he said.
The draft was in place from 1948 to 1973, when the United States converted to an all-volunteer army. But almost all men living in the United States - including most male noncitizens - are required to register with the Selective Service upon reaching 18, and federal benefits, including financial aid for college studies, are contingent on registration.
Anger over the war led many young men to flee to Canada and elsewhere to avoid the draft, and violent protests were rampant. When the draft ended, the United States set up an all-volunteer military.
Since 1980, the Selective Service has required men 18 to 26 to register to give the government a pool of men it could draw from in case troops were needed in an emergency.
As of October 31, 14.1 million men would be eligible for a draft, said Selective Service spokesman Pat Schuback. Twenty-year-olds would be called up first, followed by others -- year by year. In the age group 20 to 26, 11 million would be eligible.
The average number of men registered per year during the Vietnam War era was 18.4 million. That covers the period from July 1, 1964, through June 1973.
Rangel said his legislation on the draft would also offer the alternative of a couple of years of public service with educational benefits.
The New York Democrat told reporters his goal is two-fold: to jolt Americans into realizing the import of a possible unilateral strike against Iraq, which he opposes, and "to make it clear that if there were a war, there would be more equitable representation of people making sacrifices."
"I truly believe that those who make the decision and those who support the United States going into war would feel more readily the pain that's involved, the sacrifice that's involved, if they thought that the fighting force would include the affluent and those who historically have avoided this great responsibility," Rangel said.
"Those who love this country have a patriotic obligation to defend this country," Rangel said. "For those who say the poor fight better, I say give the rich a chance."
According to Rangel's office, minorities comprise more than 30 percent of the nation's military.
Under his bill, the draft would apply to men and women ages 18 to 26; exemptions would be granted to allow people to graduate from high school, but college students would have to serve.
Anyone who didn't qualify for military service because of impairments would be asked to perform community service.This message was edited by 5Star~Commandant on 11-19-06 @ 12:34 PM |
| |
| | | | WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A reinstatement of the military draft, being pushed by a senior Democrat, will not be slated for consideration in the House of Representatives, the chamber's newly elected top leaders said on Monday.
|
| |
| | | | surprised that a democrat wants to instill the draft again.. i thought they opposed the war..
regardless, having an 18 year old son, i hope it doesn't happen. |
| |
| | | | most of them are opposed to it.
one of the reasons Rangel wants the draft is so politicians are less likely to go to war, especially if their own sons and daughters are on the line.
Instead of a draft, I'd rather see higher pay rates for troops. I think it'd be more effective at boosting numbers far, far better than a draft. -J
-J |
| |
| | | | I've long been a supporter of national service, (while excepting that it probobly will never happen) but I do not believe that it should be primarily a military service system. Nor do I believe that at this time it is the appropriate time to institute such a system, we are neather in a national emergency (such as the world wars) nor are we in a peace time when a national service could be instituted to assist in many issues within and without the US.
Randels argument is that drafting will create and "equitable" distribution of recruits, but it would also bring in a mass of untrainable un motivated individuals whom would be a drain not a benifit to the military. the all volinteer army creates opportunities for exactly the individuals whom often do not have the chance to advance to thier potential due to certumstance of birth. I fully support improving the pay, and benifits for soldiers to a level that will continue to bring in recruits. A draft would eliminate the need to provide any benifits to entice recruits, would eliminate the need to pay a living wage (in fact pay levels would need to drop in order to handle the increase in drafties, training costs, and high turn over (drafties would serve maybe a year or two recruits sign on for 4 active and 2 more reserve)
the congressmans stated intent is to have a no excpetion draft, thus you would have to draft ALL 18 year olds (or else risk accusations of favoratism one of the major issues with the vietnam draft) which would put a massive strain on training facilities for the military with little or no benifit to fighting effectiveness. Almost none of these drafties would be trainable to fill the real need (special forces, military police, civil affairs, and combat arms ) during the short term of thier conscription, likewise the need for NCO and officiers to both train and lead these drafties would outstrip and delute the leadership training system
its simply an impractical wartime possibility unless the US intends to spend the money and resources equal to the level during WWII (about 10 times the money resources and manpower presently being employed) |
| |
| | | | I am strongly opposed to a Draft system. As a military member myself I have many reasons for feeling this way. One is very simple and to the point. The military is not for everyone. Some people simply cant handle it. To be completely honest there are some people I simply dont want ruining the military that I am proud to serve in. Lets face it...some of the people who voulenteer even dont belong in the service. So that is part of it.
Anotehr is that it is a strong military for both technology and the mindset of those serving. Its the fact they choose to serve and are proud of thier service that allows for such a strong pride in this military.
I do however believe that military service could be good for alot of people. It might help boost the work ethic of the United States. And perhaps give perspective to those that think they should tell us how the military would be run when they know nothing about it save for what they have "heard".
But as I stated before...I think the voulenteer service is the best choice..and the draft should ONLY be a last ditch effort to keep our military strong.
well there is my two cents.
and basically all my other points were already stated by GentleMaster above..so yeah...refere there for the rest. |
| |
|
|