Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

James Baker Backs Reinstating the Draft
US News and World Report ^ | 5-3-09 | Paul Bedard

Posted on 05/03/2009 8:02:08 PM PDT by truthandlife

Rep. Charlie Rangel, Congress's lone champion of reinstating the military draft, can count on another Korean War-era vet for support: Republican James Baker, a soldier in the Reagan and Bush administrations. Baker, secretary of state during the first Gulf War, visited a private girls' school in Virginia, where he was asked how to attract kids into some kind of service that gives them a stake in the country's future. "This is a very unpopular thing that I am about to say," he warned. "But one thing that makes it harder to go to war is to have a draft, because when you have a draft, then everybody's got a stake in it, and the costs of war are brought home much more vividly and vigorously to the American people. I think national service is a wonderful idea." But unlikely, he conceded: "You get killed if you support a draft, politically, but it sure would raise the stakes. Everybody would understand a lot better what we have at stake when we go to war."


TOPICS: Front Page News
KEYWORDS: 111th; baker; conscription; draft
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-85 next last
To: truthandlife

Whoever, whatever party, is stupid enough to bring the draft back will have a dead albatross around their neck.


41 posted on 05/03/2009 9:44:39 PM PDT by pankot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dragnet2
No the ones who did not want to go and the ones who did not add to the good fighting men who were there. Some who were drafted served with honor some who were drafted did not, they were not a contribution to the armed forces.

If it sounded like everyone who was drafted was a dushbag that was not my intentions and would gladly apologize if it was taken that way.

42 posted on 05/03/2009 9:45:42 PM PDT by guitarplayer1953 (Psalm 83:1-8 is on the horizon.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: truthandlife

coincidentially, the below article was posted right after yours and states ethnic minorities compose only 6% of the armed forces. In light of such a small percentage of ethnic minorities who have volunteered on their own to serve their country, perhaps a draft would provide more more equal share of the responsibility for defending our country?

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2243531/posts


43 posted on 05/03/2009 10:31:13 PM PDT by blueplum
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: richiep

“We should draft a 100,000 each year, train them through basic and a short duration advanced specialization (total active time no more than six months), then return them to civilian life.
They would not be required to serve in either the National Guard nor the Reserves. Only if there was a declared war, such as the two World Wars would they be called back to service.”

No....we shouldnt.


44 posted on 05/03/2009 10:40:02 PM PDT by Crim
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: RKV
1) Think of a mutual defense pact between the citizens, the states and the Feds - that’s the militia that the Constitution creates.

It only creates your definition of miltia at the administrative level - not at the level of the Second Amendment (2A).

The Doctrine of Negative Rights (DNR) is the power the 2A invokes to acknowledge the pre-existing militia status of The People.

Since the US Constitution creates the only country based on the DNR, it simultaniously and necessarily redefines the word militia under those auspices, from direct derivativation. The definition of militia you are talking about, however, is NOT the 2A/DNR definition.

45 posted on 05/03/2009 10:59:20 PM PDT by Talisker (When you find a turtle on top of a fence post, you can be damn sure it didn't get there on it's own.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Forward the Light Brigade
"I fear Obama will get us into a really bad war. Weak presidents do that.

Exactly!

46 posted on 05/03/2009 11:05:57 PM PDT by Steve Van Doorn (*in my best Eric cartman voice* 'I love you guys')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: truthandlife

I agree with Baker 100%.


47 posted on 05/03/2009 11:16:59 PM PDT by Lancey Howard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: truthandlife

People would probably end-up much more well-adjusted if they went into the military; but I don’t think a draft is a desirable thing, unless the countries fate is determined without it (ie circumstances like world wars).


48 posted on 05/03/2009 11:21:38 PM PDT by Rick_Michael (Have no fear "President Government" is here)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Think free or die
As if a "draft" is going to make much of a difference. See S. 277: Serve America Act. Sorry to be the one to break it to you.
49 posted on 05/04/2009 2:03:05 AM PDT by markomalley (Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: guitarplayer1953

“The draft would bring in a bunch of dushbags who did not want to be there just like in the 60’s.”

My best friend was drafted, was killed in battle of Hue during Tet 68. I think of him from time to time..his name is Richard Ballantine, US Marines, Infantryman. He was 19. He is not a dushbag.


50 posted on 05/04/2009 2:13:12 AM PDT by bushpilot1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: truthandlife

Why would the Saudis want a draft?


51 posted on 05/04/2009 2:14:25 AM PDT by rmlew ( The SAVE and GIVE acts are institutioning Corvee. Where's the outtrage!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: truthandlife

The military does not want any return of the draft. You want the best soldiers you can find. This can only occur when people WANT to join.


52 posted on 05/04/2009 2:24:18 AM PDT by Aquabird
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dragnet2

Baker may want a draft for honorable reasons, but a peacetime draft would harm the nation. Until WWII, the US did not have a tradition of a peacetime draft. We have plenty of high quality young men and women who are willing to fight for our nation without a draft.

Rangel, OTOH, supports the draft because it would destroy the military effectiveness of our armed forces.

He wants draft evaders, angry soldiers who are unwilling to fight and protestors.


53 posted on 05/04/2009 2:30:41 AM PDT by MediaMole
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: PzLdr; maggief; las vegas; RON; Beckwith; cripplecreek; EternalVigilance; BP2; imahawk; ...
An Obama drafyt is already talin place in his "Give Act" which sets up a national service regime, toed to student loans and education.

So it would not take much to make such service compulsory.

This is the draft that is already happening.

We will never see another military draft, the forces don;t want it, and they have successfully defeated the military draft movement.

54 posted on 05/04/2009 2:46:16 AM PDT by Candor7 (The weapons of choice against fascism are ,derision ,truth. (member NRA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: PzLdr; maggief; las vegas; RON; Beckwith; cripplecreek; EternalVigilance; BP2; imahawk; ...
An Obama drafyt is already talin place in his "Give Act" which sets up a national service regime, tied to student loans and education.

So it would not take much to make such service compulsory.

This is the draft that is already happening.

We will never see another military draft, the forces don;t want it, and they have successfully defeated the military draft movement.

So the fascist call for action is then switched to a completely different draft initiative, although it is not called a draft,it effectively is, and will soon likely become compulsory. Thats what liberals want. An army of mindless ideologues to do Obama's bidding.

55 posted on 05/04/2009 2:48:25 AM PDT by Candor7 (The weapons of choice against fascism are ,derision ,truth. (member NRA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: truthandlife

“I think national service is a wonderful idea.”

That’s the problem right there. “National service” is the worst reason in the world to perform national service. But it is the one cited by politicians and socialists as the reason to have national service. It is not a reason, but an end.

This may seem subtle, but it isn’t. It is like the difference between militarism an militancy. Militarism is loving the military because you love pretty uniforms, drill & ceremony, and get a thrill out of uniformity. Militancy, however, is the will and the training to fight and defeat an enemy, with minimal loss of life. It is hard, cold, and at times ugly.

So why to people perform “national service?” They do it for themselves, their family and friends, their “people”, their honor, their love of God, their traditions, sometimes for the money, and the training and camaraderie.

They perform “national service”, but not because it is national service.

Only politicians and socialists want national service as an end in itself. They want to imagine people like a hive of bees, all identical, all performing the same function. All devoted to the hive and their queen.

But this is why they are always disappointed. People just aren’t, and can’t be made to be like that.


56 posted on 05/04/2009 4:49:06 AM PDT by yefragetuwrabrumuy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Danae

Now we know why TX voted for Mark White for attorney general in 1978.


57 posted on 05/04/2009 4:53:37 AM PDT by Theodore R. (GWB is gone: Now the American sheeple can sleep at night!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: WesternPacific

In dear leader’s New America, the only people who will have “money” will be certain select party members. So, we don’t have to worry about, “a rich man’s war and a poor man’s fight...”


58 posted on 05/04/2009 6:26:57 AM PDT by jonascord (Hey, we have the Constitution. What's to worry about?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: dragnet2

Note too for proper attribute, the “dushbag” quote was NOT from any of my posts. Don’t twist MY words.


59 posted on 05/04/2009 6:45:41 AM PDT by a fool in paradise (IRONY - we know more about the First Dog's historical papers than we do of President Barack.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: truthandlife

‘Flip Syria!’

Remember that one, folks?

I stopped taking advice from Baker at that moment...and nothing I’ve seen from him since has caused me to rethink it.


60 posted on 05/04/2009 7:14:33 AM PDT by Badeye (There are no 'great moments' in Moderate Political History. Only losses.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-85 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson