Rosen: Draft bills a cynical ruse

Rocky Mountain News ^ | 30 April 2004 | Mike Rosen

[A.A. Cunningham]

Rosen: Draft bills a cynical ruse
April 30, 2004

'Vietnam War Redux: Mandatory Draft Coming." That was the headline over a cockeyed story by Sophie Lapaire on the Conspiracy Planet Web site, which bills itself as "Your Antidote to Media Cartel Propaganda," and offers links to a collection of exposés like: "Osama bin Scapegoat," "USA PATRIOT Act (Treason)," and the ever-popular "Moon Landing Scam." You get the idea. It's a hangout for paranoids and wackos of the black helicopter/Bilderbergers ilk.

Lapaire warns us that there's pending legislation in the House and Senate to reinstate a military draft, and that "the administration is quietly trying to get these bills passed." Well, she's partially correct. There are, in fact, two such bills, but they're not the work of the Bush administration. Speaking for the president, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Richard Meyers, have both officially expressed their opposition.

Its sponsors are a ragtag collection of Bush critics who oppose the Iraq operation and most aspects of the war on terrorism.

Co-sponsoring the House bill, HR 163, is Rep. Jim McDermott, D-Washington, a far-left, anti-defense renegade who, you might recall, journeyed to Iraq in September 2002 for a grandstanding performance, criticizing President Bush and lobbying for Saddam Hussein. Another House sponsor is Rep. Charles Rangel, D-N.Y., another liberal naysayer on Iraq who's also made a career of racial opportunism. Rangel asserts that his fellow African-Americans are carrying an unfair burden in Iraq.

Similar charges were made about the Vietnam War. In fact, black combat deaths in Vietnam, at 12 percent, were less than the 13.5 percent of blacks in the U.S. population. Moreover, that was a military force made up largely of conscripts. Today, we have an all-volunteer force of military professionals. If, commendably, a higher percentage of individuals from minority groups choose to sign up and serve their country, that's their business, not Rangel's.

In the Senate, Fritz Hollings, D-S.C., is the lone sponsor of S 89. Hollings, who originally voted to authorize force in Iraq, now claims that he was misled and regrets his vote. This is his mea culpa.

These House and Senate bills would not only reinstate the draft for males between the ages of 18-26, but would add women, as well.

There would also be a requirement for two years of civilian service for those not called to the military, and there'd be no deferments for college.

These bills aren't going anywhere. The Senate bill has been referred to the Pentagon for comment, and the Pentagon opposes it. The House bill hasn't even been assigned to a committee and will be buried by the Republican leadership.

Now, let's cut through the baloney. The bills' sponsors don't even want them to pass. These liberals don't really desire a larger military; they routinely vote against more defense spending. This is a ruse, a scam. It's not about conscription; it's about undermining support for Bush and the war by raising the perceived cost in the minds of the folks back home, especially moms who don't want their little boys and girls to get caught in a draft.

There are about 40 million Americans between the ages of 18-26.

This isn't World War II. After the personnel drawdown of the 1990s, following the end of the Cold War, a few hundred thousand additional, active-duty troops might be justified right now, and they can be obtained through recruitment.

Given the nature of warfare today, even a major military mobilization wouldn't require more than a million more troops. And we certainly don't need 39 million new civilian government employees performing mandatory community service at taxpayer expense when they could be put to better use in the private sector, paying taxes.

Our highly trained and specialized modern military force no longer lends itself to transient draftees passing in and out every two years. While that kind of citizen-soldier may have still made sense when I got drafted, and proudly served in 1965, it doesn't today.

In this volatile world, there may come a time when this nation needs to reinstate national conscription, but that time isn't now.

Mike Rosen's radio show airs daily from 9 a.m. to noon on 850 KOA.

[Balding_Eagle]

I am a big fan of Rosen.

He is the BEST at grinding libs down on air. He's very methodical, determined, very well informed, smart, and probably the most important attribute, fast on his feet. He has a bit of Coulter, but is much more analytical in his approach to destroying the lib. I love it when they call in, especially the educrats, There's always a pile of rubble when he's done with them. A lot of them hang up on Mike, unable to take the heat.

He doesn't put up with being filibusterd either, he warns 'em and then hits 'mister hold button' as he calls it. It's a joy to listen to him.

[A.A. Cunningham]

Rosen will be going toe to toe with Palestine Peter Jennings on Denver's Channel 7 Sunday Night at 10:20 PM.

[Balding_Eagle]

Thanks, I didn't know. It will be fun to watch!

[independentmind]

These House and Senate bills would not only reinstate the draft for males between the ages of 18-26, but would add women, as well.

Is this the first time in US history that a bill has actually been introduced proposing the draft for women? If so, it's significant for that very reason.

[A.A. Cunningham]

The sponsors of the bill know that it has no chance of passing, let alone being signed into law, so the inclusion of women is an insignificant, demagogic ploy.

[doug9732]

The courts have ruled that Congress's power to raise an army overcomes the 13th amendment prohibitation of involuntary servitude ( I'm not sure I agree ). But what possible defense could there be for mandated civilian service? It is clearly unconstitutional.