http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/12/29/mandatory.military/index.html
This seems doomed from the start. Rangel is counting on Congress’s fear of sending kids off to war to prevent war–but if Congress really is afraid, why would they pass this bill?
I’m also uncertain why Congress would ever pass this bill, and in addition there is surely little practical need for a draft. If this bill passed, there would have to be a large-scale call-up for Congress to really worry about their own kids or massive public protests, and even in the current climate I haven’t seen many sources bemoaning a lack of manpower. Lack of equipment or transport, maybe, but not manpower.
On one idealistic hand, reinstituting the draft has appeal. Bring young men (presumably) from all walks of life together and force them to work, live, fight, and possibly die, together.
On the other, more cynical hand, I see the sons of the wealthy and well connected getting deferrments. (But Native Welsh Folk Dancing is a vital course of studies! My son couldn’t possibly leave to go to war!, says the congressman to the draft board…)
Not to mention, why screw with arguably the finest fighting force the world has ever seen? We have over 1 million volunteers. People who want to be in the armed forces. Why potentialy dilute them with people who do not want to be there?
This bill will not pass. It won’t even make it out of committee, more than likely. I don’t think that was Rangels objective though. I think he was making a point and trying to start a national conversation on a issue that has come up in every major war at least since the Civil War, with the possible exception of WWII. There may have been some small motive to shame his colleagues into at least looking at the issue from a different angle. Unfortunately, I think the radicalness (if that is a word) of his presentation in introducing it as pro-draft legislation will not lend itself to the most even-handed of debates. People prone to being reactionary will be able to dismiss the topic out of hand in the midst of their indignation. People like myself might look at the underlying issues, but find it offensive to see it ‘dressed up’ in terms of conscription.
However, I don’t know how else he could have gotten the media’s attention. It’s not like one can call a press conference to simply say, “We need to talk about this issue of class and how we assign value to human life and how that effects our decisions concerning possible war.”
It’s not a draft. It’s mandatory military service for one and all! Think of it! We will have a much larger armed forces! Even in peacetime! We’ll have to find a use for it. Perhaps Canada. Darn canadians.
Seriously, the gentleman is doing very little other than hurting his re-election chances. But we’ve determined that. So, he’s got a soundbyte… and been dismissed as a loony. So… geez. I guess he didn’t think this out very well.
Personally, in the abstract, I don’t think mandatory military service is an entirely bad idea.
I do think it would involve a rather interesting complete and total restructuring of the entire US Economy. What do you think would happen, if every, call it eighteen year old, had to serve a term in the military of, say, two years?
You fool! The bugs would invade within the month!
Seriously, have y’all read the amendments to the Constitution? Note the part about slavery and involuntary servitude.
I just hope that if we do re-institute the draft, we do so before don’t-ask-don’t-tell dies. That way, I can greet my drill instructor with a hug and a kiss.
So, would this just apply to men, or would women be included too?
“Seriously, have y’all read the amendments to the Constitution? Note the part about slavery and involuntary servitude.”
Actually Cecil discounts that angle in today’s article. (Which I’m suprised noone has mentioned yet)
Actually, mandatory national service, with no exemptions, might be a very good idea.
Say upon graduation from high school, and/or turning 18, you serve at least two years in national service. Some may choose the military while others opt for a CCC-style program, VISTA, etc.
After all, this country does need a good cleaning up anyway and the needed attitude reajustment of many kids these days is just a bonus.
When the draft was instated, what was the age limit that was used, whether it was official, or just a rule of thumb?
Hell, why 18 year olds? Why not make military (or other) service mandatory for people on welfare?
I think there’s a very valid point here. If Junior will actually have to fight, I doubt as many people would be pounding the table demanding war. With legions of voters putting their children at risk, politicians would have to carefully consider which wars are worth fighting. It would be hard to fight a war purely for political gain if it means that your constituants are terrified that Johnny is going to be sent to the front in a country that they can’t even find on a map. It would be a bigger deterrant to war than nuclear weapons.
Of course. It’s unthinkable that it would be any other way. (Witness our Commander in Chief and his, er, vacation from the National Guard. Inexscusable in a common Guardsman, but the son of a former President . . . well, that’s another story.)
But the important voter base, the white, middle-class families, wouldn’t have the same “out” as politicians. They would most likely not have the proper connections, and would have to send their children. Alienating them with legions of body bags returning from the front could break the political party who got them into the war in the first place.
How many of these volunteers actually want to go to war? A good potion signed up for a college education, and some because their career options were bleak. Probably a good many of them never truly anticipated facing down enemy fire. Sure, they knew that the possibility existed, but the odds were good they’d never see action.
I talked with a recruiter once who was exasperated by the kids who wanted to enlist because, frankly, they were screw-ups, unfit, unprepared, or unwilling for a regular 9-to-5 career. Kids who had brushes with the law, those whose parents were fed up with supporting their lazy butts, kids who were pre-criminal, or who didn’t quite have what it takes to hold down a job. “I don’t want your rejects!” he lamented. “This is not a reform school!”
It would certainly dry up a lot of surplus, minimum-wage labor. Considering the fact that what keeps wages low is a overly-abundant labor pool, it might cause wages to creep upwards slightly.
It also might have the affect of lowering crime rates, considering that the age group in question makes up the majority of petty offenders. Perhaps military service might give them a marketable skill which might brighten future job prospects for people whose future included either drudgery or dead-end career options.
Yeah, no shit. Rangel is a Korean War veteran, and an idiot. But the National Service Duckster mentions has a nice ring to it.
National Service has a fascist ring to it to me. And why limit it to 18 year olds. Why not every single person who hasn’t served in the armed forces. Two full years of mandatory labor in a worthwhile cause picked out by politicians you despise. I’ll stick to picking out my own volunteer efforts and endure the horror of living around people who would never dream of doing volunteer work. It seems to me to be the far lesser of two evils.
I don’t have a problem with mandatory service - just a military draft. It’s great to give service to your country, but does everybody have to go the front line? I know you can get a non-combat position (under the old draft laws, at least) - but that’s only for people who could not kill another person due to moral, ethical, religious, whatever reasons. I do not fall in that category, but by the time a draft law is passed, I will have a Master’s in Computer Science. I can program in more languages than most people speak, can learn new languages in minutes - and the government’s idea of “useful service” is to give me a gun? No thanks.
jmizzou has it completely right.
If the government wants people’s military services, it should offer whatever wage is necessary to induce a particular recruit to join up. Not because it has no right to demand military service from people, but simply so as to avoid needless economist waste. Whether you pay for someone’s time at the rate its worth to them or simply take it away, it’s still costing society as a whole the same amount: it’s just costing different people. But if the value of what military service a person can provide is less than the services they provide doing whatever they were doing before, we’re talking pure economic waste.
ok, i came to this country when i was about to turn 15, and one motivation for coming here was avoiding mandatory service in my own coutry.
even though there was not much of a chance of war that was completely irrelevant. a lot of people were simply killed by the other kids in the army, they were promptly buried and their family notified that they died of a sickness, the family would also be denied the right to examine the corpse and and note that you do not get a broken skull from a sickness.
why does **** like that happen? because what you have in essense is a prison, everybody serving the same sentence of 2 years. by making the service mandatory they take away some sort of a right from you, and then where do you draw the line? they take away all the other rights from you for the 2 years as well.
i am in good shape, so most likely i will not get picked on, but to stay with the pack of the wolves i will have to pick on weaker guys by routinely knocking their teeth out …
if this **** does pass i will simply move to canada or europe 
besides, more people in army will only make it less effective and more costly. the effectiveness of the army is related to money spent on it, not the number of people serving.
and what is wrong with starting wars all the time if the people going to those wars go there of their own free will ?
what is next? mandatory service as a fireman or policeman? this is ridiculous
old enough for fighting
But not old enough to buy a beer afterwards.
Or hold a political office where you can vote on going to war.