Will Democrats reinstate the military draft now?

With the Democrats in control of Congress and about to take the White House, can we expect them to pass their plan to reinstate the military draft?

Jim Wooten reminds us that Congressman Charlie Rangel proposed a draft in 2003, just before the Iraq invasion. Rangel argued:

“If indeed the president believes war is necessary in terms of our national welfare, then he has to believe that sacrifices need to be made, and those sacrifices need to be shared. We have to kick up a notch the sense of patriotism and the sense of obligation.”

Rangel’s argument has some sense, though there is a good argument that the armed forces of a democracy are stronger with volunteers. Volunteers are more willing to accept the burdens of military service and more willing to fight to victory.

Partisan obstacle. Six years ago, most of us suspected that Rangel, a Democrat, wanted a draft only to make it more difficult for a Republican president to succeed in Iraq. With the 2004 presidential campaign just around the bend, Rangel was disappointed that college campuses weren’t erupting in protest.

Most of us suspect that the Democrats now will be as eager to reinstate the draft as they are to end wiretapping of suspected terrorists, or to set arbitrary deadlines for military campaigns.

When you want to make real progress, you have to get real.

Frank Warner

Comments

[Neo]

Everyone knows (or should know) that after the "draft" ended in 1973 (or 74), there were no more large scale anti-war protests. For most folks, it really wasn't about the war as much as being sent to war.

In this case, the truth lies in HR163 (108th session), the `Universal National Service Act of 2003'. Charlie Rangel's bill expressly indicates that the draft would be for a retreat.

(b) FORM OF NATIONAL SERVICE- National service under this Act shall be performed either--

(1) as a member of an active or reverse component of the uniformed services; or

(2) in a civilian capacity that, as determined by the President, promotes the national defense, including national or community service and homeland security.

A reverse component ? Sounds French.

Draft in our future ? Not with a Democrat in the White House.

Or is this supposed to be Obama's Jobs program ?

[Frank Warner]

Unfortunately, the "community service" option is too likely to create fairly useless jobs for young people who will do nothing but help re-elect whoever got them those jobs.

[jj mollo]

So ... should that be reserve???

[Frank Warner]

Yeah, that was reserve, and it was spelled incorrectly in the legislation.

[jj mollo]

Wow. That's very disheartening. I sort of took it for granted that there was a world-class editing staff working on congressional legislation. I wonder if Tom Jefferson misspelled anything in the Declaration of Independence.

[Frank Warner]

Well, there was that "unalienable."

[YaknYeti]

I suspect draftees would lead to serious problems with counterinsurgency efforts. People who did not volunteer for the armed forces are more likely to ignore burdensome rules of engagement and take out their frustrations on civilians.

[CJW]

The 9/11 hijackers weren't drafted.

[Neo]

it was spelled incorrectly in the legislation.

In four different places.

[Neo]

I forgot to mention ... the legislation, with the "misspellings", came to the floor of the House for a vote. Rangel voted against it.

[Elmo's Mom]

As per "spelling errors": please note that spellings change from time to time... as language evolves. Any research done to determine if that was ACCEPTED spelling of the era and not INCORRECT spelling???

(Ever noticed the differences in American spelling and UK spelling of the same word???)

[jj mollo]

Thanks for that, Mom. I have noticed that the Brits have problems with spelling. For instance, they spell defense with a c, as in courtesy rather than s as in sword.