Northwest Indiana Discussion

WASHINGTON — A senior House Democrat said Sunday he will introduce legislation to reinstate the military draft, asserting that current troop levels are insufficient to sustain possible challenges against 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," said Rep. Charles Rangel, D-N.Y.

Rangel, a veteran of the Korean War who has unsuccessfully sponsored legislation on conscription in the past, said he will propose the measure early next year.

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," he said.

Sen. Lindsey Graham, a South Carolina Republican who is a colonel in the U.S. Air Force Standby Reserve, said he agreed that the U.S. does not have enough people in the military.

"I think we can do this with an all-voluntary service, all-voluntary Army, Air Force, Marine Corps and Navy. And if we can't, then we'll look for some other option," said Graham, who is assigned as a reserve judge to the Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals.

Rangel, incoming chairman of the tax-writing House Ways and Means Committee, said he worried the military was being strained by its overseas commitments.

"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," Rangel said.

He said having a draft would not necessarily mean everyone called to duty would have to serve. Instead, "young people (would) commit themselves to a couple of years in service to this great republic, whether it's our seaports, our airports, in schools, in hospitals," with a promise of educational benefits at the end of service.

Graham said he believes the all-voluntary military "represents the country pretty well in terms of ethnic makeup, economic background."

Repeated polls have shown that about seven in 10 Americans oppose reinstatement of the draft and officials say they do not expect to restart conscription.

Outgoing Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld told Congress in June 2005 that "there isn't a chance in the world that the draft will be brought back."

Yet the prospect of the long global fight against terrorism and the continuing U.S. commitment to stabilizing Iraq have kept the idea in the public's mind.

The military drafted conscripts during the Civil War, both world wars and between 1948 and 1973. An agency independent of the Defense Department, the Selective Service System trains, keeps an updated registry of men age 18-25 -- now about 16 million -- from which to supply untrained draftees that would supplement the professional all-volunteer armed forces.

Rangel and Graham appeared on "Face the Nation" on CBS.

Chill dude. It's attributed to Fox. That's fair use.

Hey, if you're for a draft does that mean you DO want the US to be the world's cops or something?

As I understand the Constitution right we aren't supposed to have large standing armys, thus the reason for the Nat'l Guard as a backup until soldiers & sailors can be trained.

No, I just want alot more college age chickenhawks to have to join the military and join the fight!! If that were to happen, this war would be over next week!!

Republicans Vs. The Draft

If Democrats want to keep putting these sort of crackpot ideas out there now that they're in the Majority, that's fine, but Republicans should make them pay a huge price for it.

The GOP should hold press conferences and declare that the American people can count on them to oppose the Democratic party's draft plan and guarantee that the GOP will keep it from passing.

Then the Democrats can either be the "part of the draft" or they can explain that Rangel is a doddering old crank and his ideas aren't supported by the Democratic Party.

Either result would be a plus for Republicans and as an added bonus, it would insure that the Dems can't play the same trick that they did in 2004: running Rangel's draft bill up the flagpole and then trying to use it as evidence that the Republicans wanted a draft.

Well I certainly don't appreciate you advocating sending me and my friends to death for an unjustified war that obviously is being poorly managed by those in charge.

I don't believe fair use allow someone to copy the whole article!!



No, I just want alot more college age chickenhawks to have to join the military and join the fight!! If that were to happen, this war would be over next week!!



I wonder what part of the US constitution you're talking about??

~~~Oh the war is so bad, but lets cut and run, no even better- lets start up the draft! ~~~

~~~We shouldn't invade other countries, but let's just draft our young men and women and send them over to police the world.~~~

States that employ a mercenary military make far less judicious decisions about when and how to employ that military. History bears this out. There is a long history of discourse in the Western Tradition (I can't comment on this same tradition elsewhere out of ignorance) about the importance of the citizen soldier. The Romans (at least during portions of the Republic) undestood the importance of a citizen soldier to the fabric of society. Greeks before them undesrtood the same. Citizen-Militias were the founding backbone of America. Heinlein's "Starship Troopers" (The classic book, not the movie) dealt effectively with the importance of the citizen soldier in the fabric of society. A draft--when done properly, without loopholes for the wealthy, priviledged, or connected--creates a strong society with citizen soldiers.

This is not merely an issue for states. Tribes and tribal conflict is perhaps the epitome of the citizen soldier. The citizen soldier is a critical structural institution. It's easy to say that "this war is worth while," or to cite causus belli. But is it worth you putting your life on the line, or the life of your sons or granddaughters? A draft helps ensure that military action passes the latter test. Here is the critical structural distinction: when the military action in question is legitimately an action in self-defense (even if proactive self-defense), then the answer is almost invariably YES. If the action is offensive, aggressive, exploitative, or a product of hierarchy, then the answer is almost invariably NO. The calculus is entirely different when you are considering employing a mercenary military.

. . .

Citizen Soldiers are more likely to engage in defensive, not offensive wars. They are not a foolproof end to war, but when combined with other elements of decentralization and localization they bring us to the broader concept of a rhizome military that is structurally incapable of engaging in offensive warfare. The ultimate, structural goal is to ensure that the decision makers are personally willing to engage in the dirty work. Put Jenna Bush behind an M-60 on top of a Hummer transiting Route Tampa from Kuwait to Baghdad and see how long we "stay the course."

In arguing against the US having a standing army, Jefferson was suggesting the same style of military that Switzerland now has: every citizen of age and competence was a member of a local militia and owned a weapon, and when the nation was threatened, the militias would organize into a national army. (Washington did this to put down the Whiskey Rebellion.) Hitler knew the power of such a citizen-militia, and never tried to invade Switzerland; similarly, Jefferson knew that nations with permanent armies (he was in favor of a permanent navy to protect our borders) had, throughout history, often been sources of both domestic and foreign oppression, and there was always the risk of the military taking over the government. (This is why the Second Amendment is worded the way it is: “A well-regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.” When it was written, many of its authors assumed there would be no standing army, thus an armed citizen militia was necessary in its place.)