Chuck Rangel seeking draft reinstatement
by Hanlon on November 20, 2006 at 12:14 am
A head-scratcher to be sure. While I disagree with the draft for the most part, I have to admit that Rangel’s reason behind the proposition makes sense.
Rep. Charles Rangel, D-N.Y., said Sunday he sees his idea as a way to deter politicians from launching wars.
“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.
It’s a solid enough point. Voting for war and sending our troops over on a completely unnecessary mission without giving them equipment and armor is pretty easy when it’s someone else’s kids. When you know your son won’t be losing limbs because his truck had no armor, it’s a lot easier to vote for the war.
Not only that, but it’ll put republicans on the spot. I’ve said for the longest time that if they want anyone to believe that Iraq is the war for civilization itself the way Bush has claimed, then we should have a draft. It would solve our problem of not having enough troops immediately. Besides:
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, 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.
Every major war has involved a draft. This would be the first one that doesn’t and Bush is proposing that it’s the most important war the world has ever known. How can you possibly make that claim and still oppose a draft?
This is a “put your money where your mouth is” situation for all of the war supporters out there. Support the war? Then cast away popularity and just do what’s right. All this is proving is that the war has been politicized severely in order to make it popular, more concerned with poll numbers than getting the job done.
Posted: November 20th, 2006 under democrats, iraq, military, war.
Comments
Comment from Hanlon
Time November 20, 2006 at 1:19 pm
I agree with #2 especially, and that’s what I think is a big point. It’s a proposition greatly intended to force those who supported the war so staunchly to prove just how much they TRULY support it.
Any war supporter who votes against this is going to look pretty bad.
Comment from Tim
Time November 20, 2006 at 5:55 pm
But there was a draft during Vietnam, and that war is commonly acknowledged to have been a mistake. Children of wealth and power will always find a way out. Ask the administration - they’re experts at dodging.
Comment from Hanlon
Time November 20, 2006 at 6:55 pm
You’re correct, Tim, but was the mistake that there was a draft? Or was the war a mistake from the get-go, and the inclusion of a draft amplified anti-war sentiment?
After all, it’s hard to piss off a country more than forcing kids to fight in a war that everyone already disagrees with.
Comment from Yeahhh
Time November 20, 2006 at 6:57 pm
Supporting a war and supporting a draft are two entirely separate issues. Just because “I” (hypothetical) believe that this war is completely justified and rational (again, hypothetical) does not imply that all others should be forced to believe the same (or at least support it, in the form of serving in the army).
I hate to say it, but “any war supporter who votes against this is going to look pretty bad” is a typical liberal thought. You’re often fairly objective with your opinions, Hanlon; however, this seems like a rather blatant and obvious attack on republicans who currently support the war. By no means should any republican who supports the concept of this war be “forced” (through political pressure, as you suggest Hanlon) to support a draft. (Just like supporting diversity and affirmative action are not one and the same).
Thoughts?
Comment from Yeahhh
Time November 20, 2006 at 7:28 pm
Oh, and isn’t it supposed to be a republican tactic to stereotype your opponent into one distinct group (i.e. - all democrats support terrorists and oppose the war…just an example, but you get the idea). How is forcing all republicans who support the cause of this war to support the draft (something that you KNOW will be unpopular with just about everybody in the nation) any different?
My point is this: while the conservative figure heads (O’Reilly, Limbaugh, etc.) blatantly stereotype and make absurd/crazy statements, liberals do the same, albeit in a slightly more subtle and intelligent manner, haha. When did joining a political party eliminate the need to think for ourselves?
Comment from Hanlon
Time November 20, 2006 at 7:41 pm
This has nothing to do with stereotyping. It’s not Rangel saying something about conservatives, he’s merely testing to see just how committed to this war those who so ardently support it truly are.
It’s different because it’s not a claim. It’s exposing a blatant hypocrisy. Equating the two just isn’t fair. And the right isn’t forced to support the draft, but it’s going to look bad if they say yes to the war but no do a draft or tax cuts.
Comment from Yeahhh
Time November 20, 2006 at 8:24 pm
This has everything to do with stereotyping. Like you said, if the right doesn’t support the draft, “it will look bad.” You are forcing the right to support the draft / tax cut, solely because they support the cause for the war, and despite the fact that supporting the war and supporting the draft are two TOTALLY separate entities. Just because one believes in the war does not mean he believes EVERYONE should believe and actively support the war. Therefore, it is impossible to exhibit hypocrisy.
Comment from Brother Tim
Time November 20, 2006 at 8:39 pm
If it’s not hypocrisy then it’s stupidity. If you support the war, then you logicly would support winning. Our military is waxing weary and thin. As it stands right now, I doubt we have the manpower to win in Iraq. When you factor in all the sabre-rattling about Iran, how can it be done without a draft?
Comment from Yeahhh
Time November 20, 2006 at 8:49 pm
Brother Tim, excellent point. All I’m saying is that I dislike the fact that Rangel and the democrats are using this as a means of making the republicans look bad. They are forcing the republican hand to support the draft.
The exact same thing the democrats whined about when the republicans made them look like they supported terrorism / losing the war / etc.
Comment from Hanlon
Time November 20, 2006 at 8:50 pm
But Yeahhh, are you saying it’s NOT hypocritical to support the war but not a draft or a reduced tax cut to fund the war?
This is going to see who is TRULY supporting the war, and who just thinks it’s a nice thing to do as long as it doesn’t involve me. How can you possibly believe this is a crucial war but disagree with the draft?
Name a major war that wasn’t won with the aid of a draft. If you’re having a hard time, it’s because there hasn’t been one.
Comment from Yeahhh
Time November 20, 2006 at 9:06 pm
Yes Hanlon, that’s what I’m saying. In America, we have this thing called individual freedom. Just because someone believes in something, it doesn’t mean I’m forced to as well. Don’t use history on your side, I’ll quote off a million statements about how every situation is different. Now for the last time, read this statement Hanlon: supporting the war and supporting a draft are not the same. Just because I believe in the cause of the war does not mean that I believe EVERYONE should. Again, personal freedom (something I thought you liberals were all about…or is it socialism you guys are about…I sometimes am unable to tell, but that’s another issue). Anyway, I think you’re having a hard time with this because the democrats are doing the exact thing the republicans did to them when they were the majority. They’re forcing their hand.
Comment from Hanlon
Time November 21, 2006 at 2:23 am
You can’t ignore history, though. It’s nice to believe that a volunteer-only military would work, but there is precious little evidence to suggest that. Wars tend to involve draftees, especially in American history. Every able-bodied American fighting and all.
You believe in the cause of war. Great. But what if so few people believe in the war that it can’t win? What if popular support gets so low that no one is willing to fight it? Does that mean you’ll be willing to scrap the worthy cause simply due to popular opinion?
In my opinion, the importance of a mission trumps personal opinions. If I truly were to believe that the success of the Iraq War will determine America’s future, that a loss there would lead to further terrorist attacks and millions of lives lost, I don’t give a damn if other people don’t like it.
What we’re exposing here is a bizarre contradiction. People who ardently support the war but aren’t willing to buckle down and truly make the necessary sacrifices. This is war, this isn’t a game of Risk. We can’t balance political popularity and success of war, it’s a sure formula for failure to believe that a massive war can be fought while trying to keep the American population fat and happy.
But then I don’t support this war at all. So I don’t care if you support it or if you don’t. But what I do care about is that if you do support it you at least be consistent about it.
Pingback from Rangel with another Draft Bill » Hanlon’s Razor
Time January 30, 2007 at 6:00 pm
[...] Now this isn’t news. It’s new, but it’s not news, if that makes sense. This was getting bantered about last November, but the fact that it’s still going on is just ridiculous. Yes, we get it. The Republicans that want the war but do not want to have to sacrifice anything are big fat disgusting hypocrites. However, pushing the draft bill time and time again isn’t going to do much aside from make you look crazed. [...]
Comment from D’rawl
Time November 20, 2006 at 1:31 am
There’s also some other contexts here.
1) Rangel’s constituents include Harlem. Harlem is made up a lot of poor black people. Those constituents feel that the war is being run on their backs, because the grunts in the military are poor people. Those constituents feel that they’re pretty much being abused by the system, that no one else but them are being put through the ringer, and so everyone should be suffering equally.
2) This is never going to pass. It is a political stunt, just like the Ban Gay Marriage constitutional amendment.
Not only that, but this is illustrating the point that the military CANNOT run any longer without a glut of new recruits, if we’re going to go attacking Iran and Syria and NK and so on.
3) The threat of a draft would put people on edge against the war.