Skip to comments.
Call For Military Draft 'Grossly Insulting' To Congress
| Jeff Johnson
Posted on 01/06/2003 3:23:23 AM PST by kattracks
Capitol Hill (CNSNews.com) - Two members of the Congressional Black Caucus want to reinstate mandatory military service - the draft - in an attempt to discourage war with Iraq. But one expert on military readiness said Friday that other members of Congress should be offended by the assumptions on which the proposal is based.
Rep. Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.), a Korean war veteran, voted against the congressional resolution authorizing the use of military force against Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein last October. That proposal passed by a vote of 296-133 in the House and also passed the Senate.
Unable to block a potential invasion of Iraq directly, Rangel plans to try another approach in the 108th Congress.
"When you talk about a war, you're talking about ground troops, you're talking about enlisted people, and they don't come from the kids and members of Congress," Rangel told CNN's "Late Edition" Dec. 29.
Elaine Donnelly, president of the Center for Military Readiness, said there is no need for a draft at this time and called Rangel's proposal 'ridiculous.'
"It's a variation on 'let's tax the rich,'" she argued. "'Let's draft their sons and daughters,' as well?"
Manipulating the military in any way to influence policy decisions ignores the purpose for its existence, Donnelly added.
"You don't use the military for political objectives," she said. "The military is there to defend the country. It should not be used for political reasons, social engineering or anything like that."
Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.), who's also a veteran, has joined Rangel in his quest. Conyers denied that the proposal was intended to interfere with possible military action against Iraq. The suggestion was made, he said, to correct alleged inequities in the composition of the military.
"Once the conscription process for service in the military becomes universal and mandatory for all those who meet the criteria," Conyers said in a statement, "it removes the long-held stigma that people of color and persons from low-income backgrounds are disproportionately killed and injured while serving as ground troops on the front line."
Donnelly challenged Conyers' premise.
"That's based on false data," she said, noting that the same argument was made prior to the Gulf War but proved not to be true then either. "As far as I know, there's no evidence to back that up."
Research by the Heritage Foundation showed that the number of African-Americans in combat roles has actually declined since the Vietnam War. While the number of whites and Hispanics has increased in artillery and infantry units, African-Americans have moved into less dangerous support units that traditionally do not see direct combat.
"Again, this is a political objective," Donnelly added. It's a race-conscious goal that they seem to have, and I don't think anyone should take it seriously."
Despite Conyers' contention to the contrary, Rangel admitted that his goal is to deter a second Gulf War.
"I think if [members of Congress] went home and found out that there were families concerned about their kids going off to war," Rangel reasoned, "there would be more cautiousness and more willingness to work with the international community than to say, 'Our way or the highway.'"
Donnelly said Rangel's colleagues should be appalled by that claim.
Of course, the president has been working with the international community, to a fault, many would say," she contended. "But to imply that members of Congress would sacrifice national security because of their sons and daughters when a war is needed to defend this country...that is an insulting premise right there.
"It is equally insulting to say that members of Congress would send other parents' kids to fight a war for less than solid reasons involving national security," Donnelly added. "Either way, the proposal is grossly insulting to members of Congress."
Whatever the motivation, she said Conyers and Rangel are ignoring an important step in the well-defined process of effective military staffing.
"If we do need more people, and it's possible that we will before the year is out, what the president should do is call for more volunteers. He has not done that yet," Donnelly said.
"Until he does, any talk of drafting, or even registering men and women - it would have to include women this time around - is just a political ploy and, again, not to be taken seriously," she said.
Donnelly stressed that she is not opposed to the idea of military conscription but believes that there is a proper time for everything, including the draft.
"Only if it's a matter of total national emergency [or] military necessity would I favor reinstating the draft," she concluded. "But that situation does not exist right now."
E-mail a news tip to Jeff Johnson.
Send a Letter to the Editor about this article.
TOPICS: Foreign Affairs; Front Page News; News/Current Events
posted on 01/06/2003 3:23:23 AM PST
Good post, k.
Calling it for what it is...class warfare. Ms. Donnelly is a pistol.
posted on 01/06/2003 4:04:11 AM PST
Where was Conyers and Rangel when Demoncrat Lyndon B. Johnson was sending 58000 young men off to be killed in a place called Vietnam.By the way which Party Presidents have declared the most wars and police actions in this country.
Also with the equality now in the military where are all the women that wanted equality, are they going to be on the front lines or in the line to get pregnant. I havent seen any numbers on the numbers of females that are being put aside because of being pregnant.
Everyone wants equality until crunch time!
This may surprise some but I do agree with Conyers and Rangel on the poor and uneducated fighting all our battles on the front lines in the past.The poor and uneducated were not given Military deferments so they are correct on that matter.
Also throughout the wars of this country I have not seen or heard anyone calling for the percentages of those killed by race or gender, wonder why?
posted on 01/06/2003 4:07:33 AM PST
The administration should say in a spirit of bipartisanship on the issue of war against Iraq that it will support the draft bill proposed by the democRATS. The republicans in the house should just accept without amendment whatever stupid bill rangel comes up with and send it over to the senate. That is where the embarrassment can be piled high and deep upon the idiots.
posted on 01/06/2003 4:22:22 AM PST
It would not. The entire thing would, by default, be W's bill "because he didn't veto it".
It won't go anywhere, but it gives the soccer moms chills to think their baby could grow up to be a soldier and that is enough for Charlie and friends right now.
Never give these guys what they propose just to make sure they take responsibility. They won't and the Dem voters won't give it to them. I heard that when Clinton won the 2nd term:"Let America get what it deserves and they will never elect another Democrat again." It isn't true and the slight majority we pulled out with lots of hard work shows that.
They have our kids for 12-16 years. They have the maninstream media and the have the entertainment industry. They have organized a great proportion of our nation against itself. They must be called out just like this woman did and like every FNC anchor has every single time they try this sort of slime.
Rangle is no different from the masses of disruptors that are trying to bring down FR and he deserves the exact same response: give truth to the lies and call out the social engineers every time they raise their heads above the bunker.
The draft was the one tangible target the Left had during Vietnam and it polarized every weak-kneed coward who was mainly afraid of getting their own butt shot up.
Make this a nation where the cowards don't get the dates and where idiocy is laughed at or we will lose what we have left, which isn't all that much.
Comment #7 Removed by Moderator
"You don't use the military for political objectives," she said.
Actually yes you do. Otheriwse you're just going in a killing stuff.
War is the continuation of a nation's foreign policy after diplomacy and economic pressures have failed (slightly updated von Clauswitz)
"The draft was the one tangible target the Left had during Vietnam and it polarized every weak-kneed coward who was mainly afraid of getting their own butt shot up."
Exactly. When Nixon ended the draft the "anti-war" movement disappeared overnight. I'd say that a majority of the people ranting and shouting during 60s didn't give a flip about the Vietnamese, they were just afraid of being drafted.
To: Free the USA; knighthawk; Grampa Dave; DoughtyOne; LibertarianInExile; altair; Carry_Okie; ...
posted on 01/06/2003 8:34:22 AM PST
I think his call for a draft is not just 'grossly insulting' to Congress, but to the members of the military as well. I say this because I saw him on Hannity and Colmes the other night...Rangel was saying that the current volunteers we do have do not know they are volunteering for possibly being in combat and possibly being killed. Basically, he was saying they're too stupid to know what they're getting into when they enlist. Hannity tried to counter him on that point, but there was so much overtalk going on. This is purely a political move by Rangel and Conyers...someone at the DNC probably put them up to it.
It sounds like Rangel and his other POS congress buddy have gotten their 30 pieces of Silver from Uncle Soddomite to try and prevent us from removing this mass murderer.
Rangel and Conyers are poster its as the perfect Clymer who hates America and has been feeding on our tax $'s all of their lives.
A Wall Street Journal article today shows that a larger percentage of white soldiers are in positions to be casualties than blacks.
Special forces such as those used extensively in Iraq are overwhelmingly white.
Reinstate the draft when conditions dictate that we need cannon fodder for human wave attacks.
There is no need for a draft. George Bush is a politician who depends on votes to stay in power. Real wars, like Vietnam, mean less votes. Hence, the moment any armed conflict looks like it will turn into a real war, the troops will either come home or scaled back to a token expeditionary force in friendly territory. Why do you think we aren't attacking North Korea?
If W cannot energize enough volunteers to to fight both fronts we should only do what we can with what we have.
I don't see the use in drafting people to send them back to Asia...again. We don't have a good track record at that, expecially when we don't formally declare war.
"Two members of the Congressional Black Caucus want to reinstate mandatory military service - the draft - in an attempt to discourage war with Iraq."
How stupid! We had a draft in 1941 and it didn't stop Franklin Roosevelt from getting us into war with Japan, Germany and Italy.
posted on 01/06/2003 1:02:42 PM PST
I think the big story here is being missed. Rangel and Conyers are openly inciting racial trouble in the military on the eve of battle. Their premise is offensive and racist. Will the democrats be forced to make them resign, ala Trent Lott? Or will their party's race baiting problem be acknowledged?
posted on 01/06/2003 3:15:50 PM PST
To: Eagle Eye
"If W cannot energize enough volunteers to to fight both fronts we should only do what we can with what we have."
Amen! When reading the book, "Crisis and Leviathan," I read the argument that the purpose of a draft is to avoid paying people well enough that they freely choose to be in the military.
In other words, the draft is a way to fight a war "on the cheap"...by SHIFTING the cost from the general population, to the minority of young people who are forced to fight.
After reading that, I'm completely opposed to any draft, at any time. It's completely immoral to shift the costs of any military action to a minority of young people, rather than the cost being shared among the general population.
And, since the cost is shifted *away* from the general population, it's quite easy to argue that a draft *encourages* the general population to support wars that they wouldn't otherwise support.
Support freedom...just say no to the draft!
To: Mark Bahner
"Support freedom...just say no to the draft! "
Amazing, Congress critters who support the war oppose the draft.
They are trying to sneak a quick pitch past the young generation and are afraid a draft would wake them up.
posted on 01/06/2003 5:02:08 PM PST
I would let it out of the house and see what went on in the senate. If the democRATS produced an outrageous bill and hopefully they would it could be held up for inspection and embarrassment in the senate where it could find a timely death. No threat to actually become law but just an exercise in letting a public record be created that incumbents would have to defend. After the last election cycle Pelosi and Landrieu bent over backwards to associate themselves with Bush. Now all the presidential candidates are saying how wrong he is. Should have the same conflict for them next cycle and a good way or at least one public record to be defended would be a stupid draft bill.
posted on 01/07/2003 4:03:34 AM PST
Conyers denied that the proposal was intended to interfere with possible military action against Iraq.
Did Clinton teach him how to tell ridiculous lies with a straight face, of did he teach Clinton?
posted on 01/08/2003 6:57:22 AM PST
it removes the long-held stigma that people of color and persons from low-income backgrounds are disproportionately killed and injured while serving as ground troops on the front line
The alleged "facts" behind this claim have already been shown to be, well, non-factual. However, the whole argument should also be refuted on a more fundamental level.
Yes, jobs that involve much unpleasantness and relatively little reward are going to be disproprotionately filled with "people from low-income backgrounds". This is because people with the wherewithal to get more enjoyable and better paid jobs will usually do just that, thereby removing themselves from the "low-income background" category.
The bottom line is that if you want to bring a more upscale crowd into the Army, you have to either make it less difficult (which doesn't square very well with the quaint concept of "military readiness") or more rewarding (i.e. better pay, more training that can be applied to a later civilian job search, etc).
posted on 01/08/2003 7:05:07 AM PST
To: Mark Bahner
I read the argument that the purpose of a draft is to avoid paying people well enough that they freely choose to be in the military.
But Rangel and Conyers need the money for more important things, like more welfare. This is even good for the troops, since some of them are so poorly paid that they themselves qualify to collect....
posted on 01/08/2003 7:09:09 AM PST
Rangel and Conyers are openly inciting racial trouble in the military on the eve of battle. Their premise is offensive and racist. Will the democrats be forced to make them resign, ala Trent Lott? Or will their party's race baiting problem be acknowledged?
Exactly right. Pubbies need to call these race-baiters for what they are. There will be blood on the hands of those dividing national unity on the eve of war.
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson