The Uncomfortable Truth of a Mandatory Draft By Cody Lyon
No, No said incoming Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, Democrat of California as she quietly but firmly shook her head at a reporter. She spoke the firm no's this past Monday, during what appeared to be a smile filled photo session that concluded a meeting between her and incoming House Majority leader Steny Hoyer, Democrat of Maryland.
While cameras flashed and she and Hoyer small talked, the reporter asked Pelosi, point blank, if she would support a proposal by New York Democratic Representative Charles Rangel, to re-introduce a mandatory military draft in the United States.
Rangel first introduced similar legislation back in June 2003.
Although she spoke softly, the O's in Pelosi's no's were clearly enunciated.
Representative Pelosi knows that a mandatory draft in the United States would be the political equivalent of selling bacon wrapped beef filet to customers at a vegan restaurant. Polls show that less than 20 percent of the American people support a draft. And, both Pelosi and Rangel acknowledge that reinstatement of a mandatory draft is about as likely as Hillary not running for President.
Silly comparisons aside, on Monday, Pelosi was careful to pay accolades to the greater message in Rangel's draft proposal calling it a "good way to make a point."
"It's not about a draft, its about shared sacrifice in our country" Pelosi told reporters earlier that day.
By proposing a highly controversial draft, Rangel, a purple heart, bronze star veteran of the Korean war is asking tough, soul searching, fear provoking questions of the American people. Make note of Rangel's observation of the obvious in May 2005.
"In my own view, the war option would not be on the table if the people being placed in harms way were children of the White House officials, member of congress or CEO's in board rooms" said Rangel in a press release that year.
Most CEO, White House and Congressional offspring do not choose the cash bonuses and promises of free education available at the local military recruitment office.
But, that's not to say that the draft would serve as some sort of military equalizer.
The Vietnam War demonstrated that the rich, famous and well connected in America have ways of avoiding military conflict. Allegedly, our own President avoided seeing combat in Vietnam by utilizing high-end contacts that instead resulted in service with the Alabama National Guard.
If the draft were still mandatory, in particular, if it were during this war, people with power would probably find ways to avoid going.
But by going to the trouble of avoiding one's call to duty, a citizen is forced into an examination of conscience, and in America's current case, a deeper quest to understand the facts behind what your nation is fighting for.
Without a mandatory draft, the United State's collective conscience can remain somewhat comforted by the knowledge that recruits sign up by choice, and are compensated by money, the promise of a free education or the honor of serving one's country at will. The lack of the draft provides an almost uncanny convenience to not truly digest the seriousness and potential loss of what war presents on a truly personal level.
Though I admire Rangel for suggesting a mandatory draft we can all look back in history to see who would be fighting America's wars if a draft was re-instated.
George W Bush - AWOL Texas Air National Guard
Dick Cheney - How Many Deferments?
Rush Limbaugh - a pimple on his ass
The rich in America have always been able to avoid the war.
They should take a lesson from Prince William of Wales: He has expressed a desire to serve as an active soldier and to fight on the frontline.
Or Prince Harry: In January 2006, Clarence House announced that Prince Harry would join the Blues and Royals, a regiment of the Household Cavalry, and train as a reconnaissance troop commander. [4] Since then, it was reported that he was expected to deploy to Iraq in May 2007 as part of the 1st Mechanised Brigade of the 3rd (UK) Mechanised Division.
There you have it. British Royal brothers expected to do their duty for the crown.
The US doesn't have that.
The US has kids coming out of high school with no future joining the military in hopes they can get a college degree from the military before they're killed in some fucked up war that George W's administration deems necessary.
Troubled Texan
by
TroubledTexan (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 88 comments)
on Tuesday, November 28, 2006 at 9:51:57 PM
Thank you so much for that comment. I agree with a great deal of what you said...I would just hope that the threat of all being vulnerable to getting 'called up' to serve, would result in a much more careful and meticulous government/media and electorate-especially when considering matters of war...Again, thank you and take care, Cody
by
codyco (21 articles, 14 quicklinks, 9 diaries, 3 comments)
on Thursday, November 30, 2006 at 2:33:13 AM
Cody,
Thank you for this well thought and written article. It is a given that the wealthy will always be able to dodge the draft, and those "suckers" that don't like poor John Kerry who wins three Purple Hearts, two Bronze Stars and one Silver Star will can be defeated years later in a political race by a man who lied about his AWOL and then lied again to start a war that slaughters three thousand American soldiers and six hundred and fifty thousand Iraqi men, women and mostly children. Please give Kerry the credit for he was were the bullets were flying thick enough to get wounded in three different skirmishes. They are not going to fight in this war either.
Rangel's idea is exactly right. It is the soccer Moms driving their little innocent brats from Acrobats to Little League and to the Ice Cream Parlors from their safe suburban homes that put the "W"s and Cheneys in office. Once their little innocent's big brothers start going to Iraq they will change their rabid nationalism war mongering voices in a military minute. The politicians will listen like never before because it is the "soccer Moms" that are so rabid in the Republican grass roots that elected Regan and Bush. They are anti-labor, anti-public school, anti-choice, anti-social social programs and anti-American. They are Nazis with a little "n". They have no compassion while they talk the game of passion. When their children have to line for the draft, the politicians will think twice before starting another Vietnam or Iraq.
Thanks again for the article.
by
pratliff94 (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 962 comments)
on Tuesday, November 28, 2006 at 11:42:51 PM
While Mr. Rangel's intentions in bringing this resolution to the floor of Congress may be good ones--and I believe that any discussion of US wars and who fights them is a good thing--the fact remains that the ultimate result of his bill would be that there would be a military draft. That means young people across the United States would be forced into military service to fight wars they probably do not believe in. While that would most certainly kick up the antiwar movement's numbers, it would also increase the rate of slaughter those wars depend on to continue.
Supposedly,this draft would be different because there would be no deferments. Furthermore, the arugment goes that the threat to those currently unaffected by Washington's wars would force these constituents into action because they would not want their sons to go. This desire to keep their children out of harm's way (and the desire by said children to stay out of it) would therefore prevent the continuation of the current wars. In fact, it might even prevent future ones. However,no one who supports Rangel's bill acknowledges that the end result of any military draft is an army as big as the warmongers want. Nor do they remember recent history when over ten million people around the world protested the US/UK moves toward war in 2002 and 2003, yet Messrs. Bush and Blair ignored them all and lied and scammed their way into a war and occupation that has yet to show any signs of resolution. So, unless Mr. Rangel wants to go the whole nine yards and instigate a revolution to end all wars of capital (and somehow I get the feeling he's not the type to make such a call), then he would do better introducing a bill this coming Congress demanding an end to funding the war. A bill that made that kind of call would be much more direct in terms of calling into question Washington's wars. Plus, it would have the added benefit of ending the damn thing. It's not like the sentiment to make such a call isn't there. After all, even the most diehard war supporters on the Hill accept the fact that the recent US elections were about ending the war more than they were about anything else.
Despite this consensus on what the elections were about and what the voters were demanding when they voted against the Republicans, there is little public sentiment on Capitol Hill for ending the occupations or their funding. Instead, legislators on both sides of the aisle are calling for more money and more time. Sooner or later, they'll be joining those calling for more troops, as well. Which brings us right back to the objective fact of Mr. Rangel's bill to reintroduce a military draft. Once a draft is in place, the warmongers and planners can have as big of a military as they want.
by
Ron Jacobs (59 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 16 comments)
on Wednesday, November 29, 2006 at 8:00:28 AM
Thank you for your comment. Again, I just have retrospective hope that some decisions and approvals of war... along with the lack of real investigation/verification into certain allegations and basis for this horror story, might have gone more slowly and carefully which in turn may have led to a different outcome from the place we are now in... I really think if everyone's children were at least "officially" at risk of having to serve and see combat, there may have been a greater collective pause and some real sorting out and digging and debating of now known to be false charges like WMD/9/11 connections/Terrorism etc. Again, thanks for the comment.
Cody
by
codyco (21 articles, 14 quicklinks, 9 diaries, 3 comments)
on Thursday, November 30, 2006 at 2:57:52 AM
6 comments
How would you rate this?
You must be logged in (if signed up) to do ratings.
It's free to signup! And easy. And takes just a minute or two....
Must Read (
Well Said (
News (
Touching (
Funny (
Supported (
Interesting (
Inspiring (
Valuable (
