Korean Job Discussion Forums

[cbclark4]

http://www.charlierangel.org/index.php

Charlie Rangel, one of my favorite Democrats, has proposed re-instating the draft.

Personally, I oppose such an Idea.

I think he wants to institute compulsory service to include Job Corp, Peace Corp, Teacher Year as well as Military.

Compulsory servitude is just one of those things that make me cringe.

cbc

[Wangja]

Good to see you are so up to date.

[cbclark4]

Was there already a post on this?

cbc

[Wangja]

That little piece is from February 2006.

[Milwaukiedave]

Pelosi and her deputy already said this is not going to be up for debate. I think the point Rangel is making (and I disagree) is that the burden of the war is on the backs of the minorities and poor. It seems that a report (I can't remember the name of it) came out which said the exact opposite of what Rangel is claiming.

As an American and a Democrat, I'm oppose to the draft.

[bucheon bum]

[Wangja]

[Tiger Beer]

[cbclark4]

Yes, I recall he brought it up 3 years ago.

The reality then was it was going nowhere.

The Democrats are in power, he will introduce the bill, it will hit the floor.

Now Rangel is a Powerful leader, Chairman of the Ways and Means committee.

cbc

[Ya-ta Boy]

During 'normal' times I am not one to support a draft. Any country needs a trained military to defend itself in this world.

But once a country begins on military adventures (defined: voluntary engagements) then I think they need a draft, to ensure that the public supports the adventure. 'Everyone' knows that the poor can be suckered into supporting a war with the promise of jobs and education. Slimy. The real mark of a popular war is when 'middle America' willingly sends its sons and daughters off to fight. Remember that scene from "Saving Private Ryan" where the car drives up that long country road and the woman drops to the floor of her porch?

I have supported the idea of a draft since early '03, but only because I didn't believe the administration had done its homework to build support for the current war. (I don't think a government needs a draft if it has done its job in building and currying support.)

Rangel is behind the curve here. We needed a draft a couple of years ago. Middle class moms would have brought an end to this war an hour after the first body bag came home. UNLESS it was clear the survival of the country was at stake. It never was.

[twg]

Charlie Rangel: Political suicide in action.

His feeling is that having the draft will make rich people less likely to support war because their rich sons may go off to die. What he doesn't realize that rich people will simply pull strings to keep their sons out of combat while having more people to fill body-bags in Iraq.

[alffy]

[daskalos]

I posted before on this topic, though not elaborately, and my failure to elaborate is what, I assume, prompted Ya-ta-boy's partial condemnation of me. So let me elaborate.

I think a draft is essential to a functioning democracy. And though Republican/Imperial Rome is not an exact analogy, it will suffice.

A draft ensures that the burden of a country's foreign policy is shared equally among the populace, which is another way of making Rangel's point that wars would be given more thorough consideration before they were undertaken if the burden of them were more equally shared.

So there's that. There's also the point that the U.S. military in its current form is a society unto itself. It's led by predominately conservative people, and that trickles down into the ranks to the point that the military has far more people in it today who vote Republican than vote Democratic, by and large.

When the Roman armies went from being composed of un-paid land-holding families that could afford to equip their soliders to being an army composed of people the state paid, the loyalty of the armies shifted from the state to the generals who adminstered their pay.

This is not currently an issue. America's armies are still firmly under the control of the elected leadership. (Even the recent criticism of Rumsfeld and the Iraqi quagmire came from RETIRED generals, not active ones. Active ones are not allowed to criticize current policy in the public arena. Even retired ones walk a thin line.) But I served in the military under Bill Clinton and I remember the comments and attitudes of the officers and the upper enlisted at that time. It chilled me.

I'm thinking of a time somewhere down the road, when the divide between the military and the general populace is greater, when some party might decide that it really doesn't like the direction the populace intends to take the nation, and I don't like the possibilities I see. A rank and file filled with a truly representative cross section of society would go a long way toward keeping some general from deciding he could sieze power. Or the president who controlled the generals and their troops drawn from a segment of the country not truly representative of the people.

All this aside, even if a national draft were a matter of national service that one could serve either in the military or in schools or other public service, it's a brilliant idea. There are many benefits to living in a modern Western democracy, but not much responsibility. There's very little cost involved, and it's a truism seen in this thread that anything that comes free of charge isn't highly prized. It goes back again to JFK's statement about it's not being a matter of what your country can do for you but what you can do for your country. Compulsory service to one's country is only chilling to people who fail to see that rights and privileges entail responsibility and action on everyone's part, not just those with few options. Compulsory service would go a long way toward helping the populace to have a sense of ownership of the state, instead of being owned by the state, or worse, having no connection to it at all.

Sadly, this idea of service will die because it's not a vote getter. It will take some time for history to record what a good idea it would have been. We used to call volunteer armies something else. We called them mercenaries. Those armies were likewise mostly filled by those with few options in life, ultimately loyal to those they saw as their paymasters. With as polarized as American society is becoming, the volunteer services are a more and more dangerous idea.

Okay, let 'er rip. It's not like I don't know most people think I'm nuts over this, but let's talk again about it in 50 years. Saying "I told you so" will likely be the only comfort left to me then.

[cbclark4]

I my not so humble opinion involuntary servitude is against the Constitution.

To wit: The 13th Amendment

http://www.archives.gov/national-archives-experience/charters/constitution_amendments_11-27.html

Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Section 2.
Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

There's not even an except in times of war clause in there, ala habeus corpus. Is this an extreme view?

Equal time will be given for the opposition.

cbc

[happeningthang]

I thought there used to be an option for criminal offenders caught out during the Vietnam War years... do time or join the army.

I guess that falls under the, "a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted" section...

Why don't they ressurect this little treasure before going the whole hog and introducing conscription??

Call me cynical, but I think this is a political ploy to ensure the 'publicans fall on their own sword. The draft will be political suicide and, if it goes through, all the wrath and fury will be visited upon Bush & co.