Replies

Trace the argument far enough, and we find Charlie Rangel is agitating for the return of the draft. As things stand now, every member of the armed services now is a volunteer who entered duty with the knowledge that the job could turn dangerous, whether as active duty service person, or as an active reservist. The supplementary civilians who signed on as security personnel took the contract knowing this was more dangerous than being, say, a night janitor.

Being sent to Iraq may have come as a rude surprise to some, and given the opportunity, some of these disappointed youngsters have gone crying loud and long to the press and the public about their plight. They may eventually be excused from further duty, but not from the consequences of their actions, and could still face retribution from the government and the nation they have chosen to dishonor.

Charlie excels at being offended that "people of color" and those of lower economic situations are "disproportionately" represented in the service. In a misplaced impulse at making the field "level" for the poor and minorities, the draft should be brought back so "rich men's sons" would have to be serving at the side of the other common grunts.

News flash, Charlie. Rich men's sons, if they serve at all, have college degrees, and jockey for position either in the commissioned ranks, or for some soft duty in a place of low probability of engagement in a shooting war (Edward M. Kennedy, 1951-2, PFC, serving in an attache assignment, or Al Gore, on a "journalist" assignment in Viet Nam, with a constant escort in and out of various localities, none of which were particularly threatening). Now Charlie, he was on the front line, a draftee, and some very hostile people were SHOOTING at him, and if Charlie had to face that, then EVERYBODY should face the same thing.

We might, Charlie, we just might. When they come swarming into our neighborhoods and shut down our cities.