Draft: We Say "Yes"
Rep. Rangel will seek to reinstate draft
Americans would have to sign up for a new military draft after turning 18 if the incoming chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee has his way.
Rep. Charles Rangel (news, bio, voting record), D-N.Y., said Sunday he sees his idea as a way to deter politicians from launching wars and to bolster U.S. troop levels insufficient to cover potential future action in Iran, North Korea and Iraq.
"There's no question in my mind that this president and this administration would never have invaded Iraq, especially on the flimsy evidence that was presented to the Congress, if indeed we had a draft and members of Congress and the administration thought that their kids from their communities would be placed in harm's way," Rangel said.
Indeed. We've said all along that if everyone - EVERYONE, including sons and daughters of senators, congresspeople, corporate honchos, and even presidents and vice presidents - is subject to being drafted, there'd be whole lot more serious thinking before we charged into this or any war.
As long as the perception of our military kids as low-income, disposable and recyclable prevails, the "safe" war supporters will never value the lives they're putting in harm's way. Bring back the draft. ASAP.








I say it's spinach and I say to hell with it.
sure, the draft seems to be some sort of 'great equalizer' but is it, really?
there was a draft in effect when Predident AWOL and his Pals were in their prime, youknowwhati'msayin?
Posted by: Poodle Head | Nov 19, 2006 at 11:12 AM
But Rangel points out that House members also have to answer to their constituents, whose kids will be shipped out. Nothing speaks louder to these people than lost votes. No war, no draft. End of story.
Posted by: Wayne | Nov 19, 2006 at 11:29 AM
I've been a proponent of the draft for many years. As a veteran, I feel that everyone should have to perform public service for this country. If you're physically incapable of serving in the military, then you get a desk job at a local food bank. If you're a pacifist, you work that food bank or other government job for two years. Everyone should serve in one capacity or another, from regional fire-fighting teams to WPA-type public works.
Some think paying taxes is enough. I think public service should be mandatory as the price of living in this country. If you've put in your time for your fellow Americans, your appreciation of the advantages of living here will probably increase dramatically.
I believe in the draft.
Posted by: BenofNoHo | Nov 19, 2006 at 12:21 PM
draft now-no deferments for man, woman, rich or poor!!
Posted by: billie, sac ca | Nov 19, 2006 at 12:42 PM
History has shown that the existence of conscription alone does nothing to deter war. And if you think this proposed draft would be truly universal and therefore somehow put the brakes on warmongering, then I've got a lovely bridge in Brooklyn I'd like to sell you.
If you want to stop wars of convenience, then begin by reaffirming the constitutional requirement that only Congress be permitted to declare war. The last time that was done was WWII, and we have been in wars or police actions with regularity ever since then. And stop this war now.
Peace, out.
Posted by: Arthur Riddick | Nov 19, 2006 at 02:08 PM
I say if we have a draft start it with the kids or grandkids of politicians that vote to start wars. Once all of those kids are in and if we need more then we'll start with the kids of people in the top 5% of income, then top 10% then top 15% etc. Since the politicians and rich run the country let their kids be the first to serve. They have the most to lose if the US is overtaken.
Posted by: Jack Shit | Nov 20, 2006 at 07:55 AM
The Paris Hiltons and Pierce Bushes of the world wouldn't see an HOUR of boot camp. Anyone who thinks otherwise is painfully naive or just plain stupid.
"It's a funny thing about fishing . . . it never works out so well for the bait."
Posted by: WPA | Nov 20, 2006 at 08:46 AM
Indeed, WPA.
In the short term, a draft would give the War Party (R, D, but thankfully not all D's) exactly what it wants: a pool of new soldiers to be deployed in the war du jour, or the coming war. This regardless of the intentions of the draft-makers.
Maybe I'm not seeing this right, but 60+% of Americans strongly disapprove of the war in Iraq. And many of them voted on November 7 to express their displeasure with the war.
We don't need more war- we need more peace. And implementing a draft will not create more peace.
Posted by: Arthur Riddick | Nov 20, 2006 at 09:12 AM
YES!
The bottom line is this: We should not be talking about anything that even pertains to escalating, further funding wars, "skin in the game", whatever. We should be talking about PEACE. Ending this war and starting no OTHER aggressive wars. Period. Finito. End of damned sentence.
No draft. Pull out. Not one more person, military or otherwise, sent to die in a damned desert to fill the pockets of people like Dick Cheney and KBR.
This is going to backfire on the Democrats BADLY. Americans don't get nuance at all.
Posted by: WPA | Nov 20, 2006 at 09:46 AM
Its time for the right winger christian , bush loving war supporters to stand up for what they believe. I can think of no more fitting sacrifice than to be drafted and make a stand for merika and the mega church hate spewing anti islamic brethren like the Haggartrites, Falwellians , Dobbsonians and Robertsonrites.
Come on guys , lets express your manhood !
Posted by: lawton watson | Nov 21, 2006 at 09:09 AM