Rep. Rangel Will Seek to Reinstate Draft

[Dodgegal]

Rep. Rangel Will Seek to Reinstate Draft - washingtonpost.com


Rep. Rangel Will Seek to Reinstate Draft

By JOHN HEILPRIN
The Associated Press
Sunday, November 19, 2006; 4:11 PM

WASHINGTON -- 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, 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.

Rangel, a veteran of the Korean War who has unsuccessfully sponsored legislation on conscription in the past, said he will propose a measure early next year.

In 2003, he proposed a measure covering people age 18 to 26. This year, he offered a plan to mandate military service for men and women between age 18 and 42; it went nowhere in the Republican-led Congress.

Democrats will control the House and Senate come January because of their victories in the Nov. 7 election.

At a time when some lawmakers are urging the military to send more troops to Iraq, "I don't see how anyone can support the war and not support the draft," said Rangel, who also proposed a draft in January 2003, before the U.S. invasion of Iraq.

Sen. Lindsey Graham, a South Carolina Republican who is a colonel in the U.S. Air Force Standby Reserve, said he agreed that the U.S. does not have enough people in the military.

"I think we can do this with an all-voluntary service, all-voluntary Army, Air Force, Marine Corps and Navy. And if we can't, then we'll look for some other option," said Graham, who is assigned as a reserve judge to the Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals.

Rangel, the next chairman of the House tax-writing committee, said he worried the military was being strained by its overseas commitments.

"If we're going to challenge Iran and challenge North Korea and then, as some people have asked, to send more troops to Iraq, we can't do that without a draft," Rangel said.

He said having a draft would not necessarily mean everyone called to duty would have to serve. Instead, "young people (would) commit themselves to a couple of years in service to this great republic, whether it's our seaports, our airports, in schools, in hospitals," with a promise of educational benefits at the end of service.

Graham said he believes the all-voluntary military "represents the country pretty well in terms of ethnic makeup, economic background."

Repeated polls have shown that about seven in 10 Americans oppose reinstatement of the draft and officials say they do not expect to restart conscription.

Outgoing Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld told Congress in June 2005 that "there isn't a chance in the world that the draft will be brought back."

Yet the prospect of the long global fight against terrorism and the continuing U.S. commitment to stabilizing Iraq have kept the idea in the public's mind.

The military drafted conscripts during the Civil War, both world wars and between 1948 and 1973. An agency independent of the Defense Department, the Selective Service System trains, keeps an updated registry of men age 18-25 _ now about 16 million _ from which to supply untrained draftees that would supplement the professional all-volunteer armed forces.

Rangel and Graham appeared on "Face the Nation" on CBS.

___

[Army_of_One]

This is nothing more than a political ploy to bring more negative press to the war...as if we need any more. Dems and Repubs will both overwhelming NOT support a draft. Charlies is just talking out of his liberal ass.

[Outofdodge]

Originally Posted by Army_of_One

This is nothing more than a political ploy to bring more negative press to the war...as if we need any more. Dems and Repubs will both overwhelming NOT support a draft. Charlies is just talking out of his liberal ass.

He's introduced this before, during the republican control of the house so it's nothing new. What makes his liberal ass as a former soldier anymore circumspect than your conservative ass as a current enlistee?

The news reports have already been spread and posted here previously that the Army had "to reduce it's standards" to meet it's recruiting goal once.

I paraphrase this sentence from a very conservative pro-war blog cPanel where the blogger took shots at both Sens Clinton and McCain:

"Abizaid basically said, hey this is what we are doing given
the constraints you put us under, sure we could use more troops but we
can’t send more given the military’s force structure (ie we don’t need
more troops in Iraq, we need a bigger military period"

So my question is purely-If we need a bigger Army, and it would appear we do; if the volunteer force is not big enough then why not some form of the draft returning?

And an answer on the facts if available since you're closer to the recruiting battle than I obviously am, or your opinion if you can leave the right/left diatribe out of it would be appreciated?

[TexKan]

I was thinkinin when my boys turned 18 they had to "registar"...... seems that still holds - they don't need a draft........period

[Army_of_One]

Originally Posted by Outofdodge

He's introduced this before, during the republican control of the house so it's nothing new. What makes his liberal ass as a former soldier anymore circumspect than your conservative ass as a current enlistee?

The news reports have already been spread and posted here previously that the Army had "to reduce it's standards" to meet it's recruiting goal once.

I paraphrase this sentence from a very conservative pro-war blog cPanel where the blogger took shots at both Sens Clinton and McCain:

"Abizaid basically said, hey this is what we are doing given
the constraints you put us under, sure we could use more troops but we
can’t send more given the military’s force structure (ie we don’t need
more troops in Iraq, we need a bigger military period"

So my question is purely-If we need a bigger Army, and it would appear we do; if the volunteer force is not big enough then why not some form of the draft returning?

And an answer on the facts if available since you're closer to the recruiting battle than I obviously am, or your opinion if you can leave the right/left diatribe out of it would be appreciated?

I'm only able to comment on my little piece of the pie. I can't say if we do or don't need a larger Army/military. I could inject my personal opinion but I am somewhat pro-military...lol. I am against a draft as most people are for many different reasons. A draft could destroy our military. Every person in the military volunteered and hopefully we can keep it that way.

As far as the Army "lowering it's standards"....You can spin it that way if you want but the fact is a few years ago when recruiting was good we raised the standards significantly. For example to join the Army you generally have to have an AFQT (Armed Forces Qual Test) score of 31. (that's not a percentage). We STOPPED taking Seniors that scored below a 50 even though they were qualified. We stopped taking people with GED's unless they had a certain amount of college. Since the war started we have opened some of these windows back up and now let seniors with a score of 31 or higher join instead of a 50. They are STILL qualified. We opened the window for GEDS back up also. So...IF you wanna spin it that we lowered the standards you can. Basically we just went back to the previous standards of what we had in the 90's. You STILL must have a diploma (GED included) to enlist into the military and still pass our background checks. If you have any misdemeanor on your record it will more than likely disqualify you from any job that has a secret clearance or higher. What we have done is raise the age limit but that hasn't really transformed into a whole lot of contracts for the Army. We have also raised the benefits of being in the Army. We give sign on bonuses of up to $40,000, student loan repayment up to $65,000 and a college fund of up to $70,000. I just enlisted the deputy sheriff of Hodgeman county. He had over 90 hours of college and $27,000 in student loans. He was working a dead end, 9.50 an hour local deputy job. He enlisted to be special forces, got his loans repaid and got a 18,000 bonus. =)

[Outofdodge]

Originally Posted by Army_of_One

I'm only able to comment on my little piece of the pie. I can't say if we do or don't need a larger Army/military. I could inject my personal opinion but I am somewhat pro-military...lol.=)

You pro-military? who would a thunk it? Your personal opinion is fine and should be part of your answer. I just asked you to temper the rhetoric.

Originally Posted by Army_of_One

I am against a draft as most people are for many different reasons. A draft could destroy our military. Every person in the military volunteered and hopefully we can keep it that way.

For the record I am not in favor of a draft but I really need to understand from yours and other's why the reinstatement is a bad thing. And why would it destoy our militiary? Did it during WWII? There was a draft during Vietnam, not that certain people didn't find ways to avoid it, but our military has 'survived'.

From where I sit in not served civiliandom, currently comfortably in middle class suburbia, I read a transcript of a General essentially (my translation-to lazy to quote him) that the USA cannot afford more than a short term increase in Iraq troop levels due to the overall size of the force.

Originally Posted by Army_of_One

As far as the Army "lowering it's standards"....You can spin it that way i.

Wasnt' my spin, but if the standards were set too high and the standards were re-set that is one thing. But if the standards were OK, let's say in 2003 but not in 2006 and recruiting goals were not being met as recorded, then is it not a "lowering of standards" that occurred to reach the recruiting goal? Thanks for the info on the test scores and such, but did I not read where some previously "minor infractions" were now allowed - to be fair with proof of correction or some strings attached? I forget which.

Originally Posted by Army_of_One

I just enlisted the deputy sheriff of Hodgeman county. He had over 90 hours of college and $27,000 in student loans. He was working a dead end, 9.50 an hour local deputy job. He enlisted to be special forces, got his loans repaid [snip]

You might want to reconsider describing a "local deputy" job as being a dead end job. It might be at the top of the pay scale for that county and advancement might have required relocation but dead end? Not sure I'd want to use the word "dead" with any law enforcement position.

[Army_of_One]

He's actually the one that said he was in a dead end job in Jetmore. I guess it's because he's young and wanting something more exciting and that it wasn't fulfilling all of his needs. True that doesn't make it a dead end job.

[TexKan]

to him it does.......... there are plenty of dead end PD......... ask any cop. Playin that twist on the comment made is just graspin for conflict...... Ya'll can do better than that.........