So the draft talk is back. Yawn.
WASHINGTON –Americans would have to sign up for a new military draft after turning 18 under a bill the incoming chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee says he will introduce next year.
Rep. Charles Rangel, D-N.Y., said Sunday he sees his idea as a way to deter politicians from launching wars.
Our military’s strength is volunteerism, but manpower continues to be a serious issue –not just for the new recruits (who end up as the PFCs manning humvee turret guns, or the guys pulling maintenance on blackhawks at 0300), but also for salted soldiers who must be retained with ever-increasing reenlistment bonuses each year. The fact that there are still vast reserves of young women and men that are willing to do these dangerous and difficult jobs far from home and loved ones speaks volumes to the character of our country. By no means am I saying that everything is coming up roses, but neither are we dire straits.
If the Army (or the military as a whole) wants to fix its manpower issues, they should loosen the rules tying Guard soldiers to their states. At this moment, we have the most combat-experienced National Guard in our nation’s history. Most states have regulations, however, that delay and disrupt soldiers from voluntarily deploying abroad to OIF/OEF.
If you want to go to Iraq, you have to (1) get a conditional release from your commander, who then takes a hit on his bottom line (manpower is such an issue that commanders are now graded on their ability to keep their units filled.) Overcoming that hurdle is difficult, because once your unit commander gives you the go-ahead, (2) the request is then kicked up to the state’s Joint Force Headquarters (where, if your commander somehow approved it, it will get disapproved, because the states also get graded on their ability to keep the ranks filled.) Next, you have to have an assigned slot to be transferred into in Iraq, which must marry up with your rank and MOS. (never mind operational needs on the ground –they always can use more guys helping out. Even in Iraq, soldiers get sick, get hurt, or go on leave.)
I’ve had several of my buddies get denied OIF/OEF deployments after volunteering to go because there were “no spots.” That gave me a hearty chuckle.
I tried to volunteer to go to Iraq 2 years ago, and my request was denied.
Bottom Line: there are many, many ways the military can work to fix its manpower problems, but a draft shouldn’t be part of the conversation. My infantry unit is filled with warriors who are motivated to successfully accomplish any mission given to them. Woe be to the company commander who must take command of a rebellious, ill-disciplined company of draftees and leads them in combat.
The question is: is this draft proposal supposed to help the military achieve victory? Or is another attempt at social “justice” that has absolutely no place on the modern battlefield?
I barely oppose the idea of a draft.
However, it sticks in my craw that about 1% of the American population are fighting what some define as an epic struggle for national survival.
It seems to me that business at home is pretty much as usual. Only our military personnel and their families are making a sacrifice or putting forth an effort.
Just ask Rangel himself.
He wants the draft in place to threaten ivy league college students and their influential parents with military service. The goal? To make sure that the US never, ever, goes to war again because those parents and protesting students would block any decision to fight.
Vietnam, part 9999…..
This is more of the same from Rangel. He introduces the same bill every couple of years to make somekind of political point. Ironically the Anti-War crowd use this bill to put fear into the populace that Congress is considering a draft bill, while technically correct it’s always soundly defeated.
Also the jab Rangel made about the all-volunteer military disproportionately puts the burden of war on minorities and lower-income families has long been disproved.
It’s like he’s stuck in a time warp of 1951. Both my Grandfathers served during in Korea and have frequently remark how much different today’s military is from the past. Hell, my father joined the army in ’78 and directly experienced the effects of a draftee force (and the Carter Cannibalization) and then the all-volunteer force. I know which one he prefers.
Lastly, God knows I have some problem childs I have to deal with as a NCO; I can’t imagine what it would be like if I had draftees to contend with.
A draft is a bad bad idea, as much as I like the idea of universal service. Heard from too many vets, or read in histories, about how draftees were often worthless.
What they COULD do is loosen up some of the regs. I got turned down by USNA, ROTC, and enlisted Navy and Marines thanks to my eyesight (10 diops nearsighted). I now have a MA and work logistics for a defense contractor.
There’s really no reason the military couldn’t take me, put me into a uniform, and have me doing nearly the same job. Odds are it could take somebody with perfect vision and allow them to be handed a rifle. It would be a pay cut, but I’d happily take it.
I know other guys with tiny medical issues who’d happily take REMF jobs so they could say they helped out.
*shrug*
Rangel believes he can end the war by threatening to draft the kids of the rich and influential. His logic is if mommy and daddy’s little darlings might have to go straight from Dartmouth to Baghdad then the parents will raise a huge stink with their local congressman demanding that the war end.
For all non-NYers here, let me tell you Rangel is an idiot of massive proportions. He hosted the even where Hugo Chavez bad mouthed the president, then he had the nerve to get up and say Chavez was out of line and only he had the right to bad mouth the president.
Kind of bounced into the same problem in the airforce active duty. I volunteered for Iraq, but theres no need for my AFSC over there (air launched cruise missile maintainer)a few volunteer slots opened up for convoy and escort duties, but only a few. Almost the entire shop volunteered (close to a hundred troops) and only about a half dozen got it. A mini blue to green style program was offered where a troop could volunteer for a full year tour attached to the army was opened, but the redtape was rediculous.
As a 100% service-connected disabled Vietnam era veteran, most are missing Rangel’s point. I AGREE TOTALLY WITH RANGEL AND HERE’S WHY:
At present, only the most patriotic and poorest among us serve in the all-volunteer armed forces. ALL Americans, however, should serve the nation in some way for a minimum of two years — manditory. HERE’S THE PLAN:
“It would be a privilege, and positive, life-enriching, educational and maturation factor in the lives of America’s young adults to serve a mandatory period of service to the nation, with the additional goals of providing increased security or defense of our nation, the promotion of our democratic values, and to help those in the country and the world who are oppressed or less fortunate. This service should take the form of a mandatory period of contribution to the United States of America of approximately two years, in either a branch of the military, the Peace Corps, AmeriCorps or some other approved service entity.”
The way it stands now, not all strata of society serve the nation. The lion’s share of privileged and the wealthy are able to avoid national service and, in doing so, deprive the nation of their valued input and assistance in times of both peace and war. It is unfair to the less privileged and the poor to expect that only they serve to defend and assist the nation along side military academy graduates.
ALL should serve in some capacity. A GI Bill type of incentive could be offered for such mandatory service, comparable, but not equal to, the GI Bill for those who volunteer for longer service and regular military active duty.
The advantages of manditory service are that all are then at least minimally prepared to be citizen soldiers with some familiarization with military service, or domestically to assist first responders and other full-time law enforcement agencies, such as the Border Patrol, or in the event of a national disaster anywhere in the nation. It has become obvious in recent years that the National Guard cannot shoulder the weight of all these types of service, nor can the Red Cross and other such relief agencies.
The final superb advantage of mandatory national service is educational. Most of our youth, and an embarrassing percentage of adults (including, unfortunately, our elected representatives in Congress) know nothing of national or world geography, sociology, civics, cultures, or languages and other factors alien to their own immediate surroundlings — knowledge that are required to make wise votes in elections about international and domestic issues and programs. Manditory service would be a partial answer to this embarrassing paucity of knowledge by the American populace of the most basic aspects of our country and the world at large.
For these and other reasons, what Rangel and others are proposing should be taken with the utmost seriousness. There are not enough negative aspects to mandatory national service by all to condemn such a proposal without a full and thorough debate and national referendum.
Service to this republic should not be allowed to be protrayed as a “draft” and a one way ticket to Iraq. From conception, this union has known that all might have to become citizen soldiers. That was an accepted fact of this grand experiment.
Over the last two centuries, that pride of service has waned until it is now accepted that there are some classes that need not serve the nation in even the most minimum areas of need, lest it divert them from some “greater career asperations.” National service, mandatory or otherwise, should be seen as a long term commitment BY ALL AMERICANS to serve the nation in some very meaningful capacity in the areas where it is most needed — NOT were it is most convenient to the individual. That, my friends, is patriotism.
Many in the nation, the U.S. House and Senate, however, do not see the need or practicality of such as proposal because they are thinking about re-election instead of what is best for the nation (surprise, surprise). And the media isn’t helping with headlines such as “Rangel Wants to Send Your Kids to War.”
WE NEED TO EDUCATE THE MEDIA, AND THE POPULATION AS A WHOLE, ABOUT THE ADVANTAGES OF MANDITORY SERVICE TO THE NATION. I AM STARTING TODAY AND ASK ALL BROTHERS AND SISTERS HERE TO DO THE SAME.
Bring it on Rangel you Libtard. Just assure me we’ll kick ass and take names in the process and I would gladly support it.
In the final days leading up to the election, all we could hear from the DNC FAX machines was “oh my, we’ve been in Iraq for as long as WWII lasted”. Duh! I don’t recall Patton worrying about collatoral damage as he “places removed” European towns and villages on his run to the Rhine. You simple shits. I guess we have been there a while when you have to fill-out an environmental impact statement every time you drop a bomb on that shit-hole.
But if you plan on conscripting my kids, you sure as hell better be willling to take the psychic risks and “get-r-done”. Let the blue-hats cover the rebuilding and social programs. That’s about all they’re good for anyway.