The draft is just a bad idea, no matter who proposes it and implements it. Compulsory military service is just destined to failure. If people want to join up they will.
» Breaking News
Babysitter Synjan Mitchell Arrested For Leaving Kids To Go Drinking
Gemma Atkinson Promotes Command & Conquer Red Alert
Uganda Cops Warn About Knock-Out Breasts
CNBC Forced To Cut Costs
Sumner Redstone Sells Midway Games To Ease Cash Crunch
Works for Israel. I don’t know that in theory it is such a bad idea if after high school everyone had to spend 1-2 years in the military or some other form of mandatory government service. In practice I don’t think it could ever be implemented, particularly without a ton of hidden loopholes, but the idea is not necessarily a bad one.
Compulsory military service is just destined to failure.
It worked for WWII.
I agree with Rangel’s larger point. A fair and random draft with few or no deferrals will focus America’s families on her wars, including congresscritters that are now much more focused on reelection.
I also think that a year or more of national service would be both a good equalizer and a good way to introduce people to diverse thoughts and people.
yea but what do we do with this nation of fatties when some huge proportion of draft-age kids couldn’t make the entrance requirments?
Can you imagine the lawsuits when we put tubbo into the army and on a diet and exercise program?
In WWII I bet if we didn’t have a draft people would have signed up. I don’t believe in the idea of forcing someone to serve. If the cause is just, they will.
I think some of you people are on crack. This would simply NOT work here in this day and age. The fact that this is even being brought up shows that the military is in bad shape, stretched too thin, fight a war it cannot win. These people have been fighting each other for 4,000+ years and the US coming in playing the middleman in a sick chess game is not going to stop it.
Those that dont know history are doomed to repeat it. When will you people learn?
I think some of you people are on crack. This would simply NOT work here in this day and age. The fact that this is even being brought up shows that the military is in bad shape, stretched too thin, fighting a war it cannot win. These people have been fighting each other for 4,000+ years and the US coming in playing the middleman in a sick chess game is not going to stop it.
Wait, why are we talking about this? Are they trying to reintroduce it over there again?
Gustave Gilbert, a German-speaking intelligence officer and psychologist who was allowed by the Allies to speak with Nazi POWs, and Hermann Goering, the Nazi Reichsmarshall. Their conversation took place on April 18, 1946, during a break in the Nuremberg trials, and was recounted in Gilbert’s book, Nuremberg Diary:
“We got around to the subject of war again and I said that, contrary to his attitude, I did not think that the common people are very thankful for leaders who bring them war and destruction.
“Why, of course, the ‘people’ don’t want war,” Goering shrugged. “Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece. Naturally, the common people don’t want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship.”
“There is one difference,” I pointed out. “In a democracy the people have some say in the matter through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can declare wars.”
“Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country.””
A random and fair draft helps assure the democracy keeps its voice, and keeps it strong. If our 500+ representatives and senators had more than 6 kids in the army, would we have started this war or be arguing about cut-and-run? If our fat-cat rich pundits had skin in the game, would they be reporting more accurately or playing the games they play?
Having an army that does not represent the people uniformly is a real structural weakness and a danger to democracy (think illegal wars of aggression and think chances for a coup).
Better no army than an army of volunteers that do not represent the demographics of the country.
NG, Here ya go.
Oliver, I love ya man, but consider this: Maybe Charlie Rangel knows something you don’t. Reintroducing the draft is essential to strengthening this country. And because it is democratizing - especially in this era of improved communications - it will reduce, not improve, the chances of the military being used aggressively. It also could be used to provide much needed remedial civics education for those who don’t even know the meaning of the word.
Another thing to consider: righties actually hate this idea more than progs do. Why? It would take the military out of the province of being the righties’ exclusive club that it has been for the past 30 years.
Please give it more thought.
No, I’m sorry, we’re not a free society if someone forces you to serve in the military. That’s straight out of fascism 101, it says that your military is so far out that you’ve got to push people in. If the cause is just, and the reasoning righteous people will willingly sign up and put their lives on the line for their country - not at the tip of a spear.
We all pay taxes, why not have everyone do 2 years military service.
The volunteer army gets it’s recruits from the ghettos and depressed rural areas.
Why do you hate your own people? It is good that poor minorities should be used for cannon fodder?
This is a myth.
Paying taxes for services you use every day is a world away from being forced to learn how to shoot guns and kill people.
A truly healthy democracy has to set strict boundaries between its military and ordinary citizens, especially it’s younger ones. As someone who is at the draft eligable age, the prospect of being involuntarily recruited into a war of imperial aggression truly frightens me.
However, the bill will probably get killed right away. It is more of a political ploy to show how futile the war in Iraq really is. The biggest effect it will have will most likely be a negative one on the new Democratic congress’ approval rating, after all, it was a Democrat who’s sponsoring this bill. The People elected them becauese they’re tired of the war; and the idea of their children being drafted to fight in it is far from what they wanted. The Democratic controlled 110th congress hasn’t even met yet, and they’re already screwing up. I wish the Greens had more power.
There’s merit to mandatory national service, which could be spent in the military, at the option of the server. Say, every able-bodied 18-year-old spends three years of public service. One could spend it in the military, and some will choose to do so. Others could spend it on public service projects, like public construction. After the end of your service, you get a free ride to college.
I think mandatory national service- if it’s truly mandatory for all- is a good thing. That’s national service, not necessarily military service. There are too many people in our country who think that everyone else is or ought to be just like them, and, say, two years working for the public weal may help people expand their horizons a bit.
As far as a military draft goes, this bill is going down in flames… and we can point out that the Repugs who spent the last three years supporting this war are voting it down.
I have very mixed feelings about the draft.
I was almost old enough to be subject to it during Vietnam. Old enough at any rate to have it enter my consciousness, “O wow, in a couple of years I could be drafted.”
In that sense I am against the draft, forcing people to fight, kill and die against their will seems to be absolutely wrong. Especially when the war in which they are killing and dying is so obviously wrong.
On the other there are compelling societal advantages to having a democracy’s military represent all facets of that society.
I come from a one-generation military family. My father joined the Air Corps prior to WWII and with the exception of a brief civilian stint after the war he was a career non-com until he retired in the ’70s. He joined in order to escape a small town rural life which he despised. He decided he loved the military and spent his life in it.
My father’s generation of military men had people from many diverse backgrounds who had originally entered the service either voluntarily or through the draft.
After a couple of decades of All Volunteer Army it seems as though we are almost creating a Guardian Class, something even akin to a caste. Some families serve in the military others do not.
I think it is dangerous in a democracy for the military to become a caste. When the military begins to believe that the common citizen does not share there beliefs or values it becomes easier for the military to point those guns at the citizenry.
In the ’60s the draft was de rigeur and our politicians (Democratic and Republican) marched our army into an unwinnable and ill-advised war.
Times have changed. I think had there been a draft in 2002 it would have been much more difficult, if not impossible, for Bush to pressure the Congress into approving his venture into Mesopotamia.
All this being said I think some allowance needs to be made for those who on moral grounds oppose military service. There is value to national service. At the very least if everyone had to spend the ages of 18 to 21 performing some type of national service it would keep people out of college until they were old enough to study and not just party.
We are a democracy and we should share both the bounty and the expense that goes into creating a democracy.
Ooops sorry about the typo:
I think it is dangerous in a democracy for the military to become a caste. When the military begins to believe that the common citizen does not share their beliefs or values it becomes easier for the military to point those guns at the citizenry.
If there ever is some type of compulsory national service it should indeed be compulsory. Everyone from the scion of the richest family to the poor schmuck who can’t rub two sous together should be compelled to serve.
I think Johnny L. is dead on. Rangel isn’t really interested in getting people drafted, he is making a point about the uneven burdens being borne by those segments of society that make up the rank and file of the military, and about the lack of participation by those who tend to profit from our nation’s imperial ventures.
OW, c’mon. Think this line over:
If the cause is just, and the reasoning righteous people will willingly sign up and put their lives on the line for their country…
Do you really believe that the thousands of people who are stuck in Iraq and Afghanistan right now signed up to be doing exactly what they’re doing? How does that pollyanna reasoning account for the massive deception and utter incompetence that are the foundation of both of those campaigns?
Colorado Dave is right. The Rethugs, led by the Bush cabal, have been strengthening the foundations of the U.S. as a police state. One of the most important steps to that police state would be a military that considers itself separate from and superior to the public it is supposed to serve.
Don’t kid yourself into thinking it can’t happen here, whether there’s a Dem or a Rethug in the White House. It’s the same sort of thing we elevated to an art form in Latin America (see School of the Americas). Toss in the recent vandalizing of our constitution; the steep growth curve and recent domestic deployment of mercenary firms; and the illegal detentions of both U.S. citizens and legal immigrants, and it becomes clear that those chickens are itching to come home to roost.
Can we have a moratorium on using terms like Rethug, etc.?
When I see a right-winger make a post using terms like Demon-crat or Dimocrat I immediately dismiss the poster as a loon.
We don’t need to use not-so-clever terms like Rethuglican to paint our opponents as dangerous and out of step. Our opponents do that themselves with their own policies.
I think that Rangel is changing the terms of the debate to highlight the emotional connection our society should have with the kids dying in Iraq. He’s right. The way class works with military recruitment isolates us and he wants everyone to share what I think is his gut level rage.
I think everyone should serve, period. But I doubt anyone, either side, has the moral willpower to make it stick. Its not politically viable. Service in a ‘democracy’ should precisely not be contingent upon ones agreement with any particular policy or action.
How ’bout we just round up the 6 or 7 million illegal aliens and conscript ‘em? Men, women and children, young and old alike. Then they can get to be citizens after 2 years service.
2 birds with one stone, as it were.
When I see a right-winger make a post using terms like Demon-crat or Dimocrat I immediately dismiss the poster as a loon.
You’re free to dismiss as you wish, Dave, and we are all free to call ‘em as we see ‘em. If you see fit to bestow politeness on the political party that has more or less run roughshod over our republic for the last twelve years, go right ahead.
Meekly turning the other cheek and tacitly granting legitimacy to lunatic, bullying quasi-fascism has led to 9/11 and the quagmires in Iraq and Afghanistan. It has allowed the trashing of large segments of our constitution.
You don’t have to be too clever to call a spade a spade. But you are free, of course, to keep admonishing civility while Rome burns.
Does anyone appreciate the fact that Rangel is grandstanding, and throwing down the race card, and the class rivalry card at the same time?
There is plenty of evidence that the Armed Forces are not topheavy with either the poor or minorities. Never mind the implication that a member of a minority can’t make a rational decision to go into the Armed Services, fight for his country, learn a trade, pursue another direction for his life, enhance his chances for better employment or an education, under no duress whatever.
Rangel should be bitch slapped by another Korean War veteran, one with a lick of sense.
But you are free, of course, to keep admonishing civility while Rome burns.
CS, It is not civility I am seeking. Made-up words like Rethug and Dimocrat call attention to the made-up word, not the argument behind them.
It is akin to typing in all caps or misspelling words.
If you want to say that Republicans are assholes then just say it.
Does anyone appreciate the fact that Rangel is grandstanding, and throwing down the race card, and the class rivalry card at the same time?
Grandstanding? Probably.
But race and class? I haven’t seen any remarks from Rangel that reflect a race- or class-based argument. Maybe you can provide some cites?