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.
Did Clinton teach him how to tell ridiculous lies with a straight face, of did he teach Clinton?
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).
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....
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.
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.