Rangel's Draft Idea Spurs Vital Debate
By: Bassey Etim, Badger Herald (U. Wisconsin)
November 21, 2006 4:45 PM

(U-WIRE) MADISON, Wis. - U.S. Rep. Charlie Rangel, D-N.Y., is not insane. His proposal to reinstate the draft has been met with a virulent response from the left and the right, and the outrage is understandable.

However, most bewildered critics and Americans hearing about it on the news don't have any more than an elementary understanding of Rangel's proposal. Offering an idea this controversial is meant to trigger a larger debate: How can we sustain our military in a long-term struggle against pseudo-Islamic extremism and the philosophy of terror?

A mandatory draft would mean a dramatic cultural change for our nation. I'm not sold on the idea, but it's worth serious thought. Further, Mr. Rangel is not suggesting that everyone of age should be shipped off to war.

"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 (or) in hospitals," he said in an appearance on CBS's "Face the Nation." He added that service would come with a promise of educational benefits.

While we treasure our self-determination as college students, it is hard to argue that a few years of mandatory national service wouldn't strengthen our country. In addition, his assertion that government officials would not have presented shoddy guesswork to justify an invasion if their children could be placed in harm's way doesn't seem wholly unreasonable.

War is a serious endeavor, and we may be breeding a culture of pop-militarism by assigning our national defense to those who feel compelled to volunteer.

Our military is an amazingly diverse institution, yet the responsibility of battle falls inordinately on the disadvantaged who see no other option to get ahead. I don't mean to suggest poor people signing up for military service is a bad thing, but it seems morally corrupt for the middle and upper classes to pay for conflict while the lower class does the fighting. Quite simply, mandatory service to our nation would give us a concrete perception of the pity of war.

What would the implementation of this proposal mean on an individual level? Instead of clamoring over what colleges they've applied to, high school graduates would argue about what branch of the national service to join, whether to teach underprivileged kids, scan cargo at the local port or fight overseas before college.

Somehow, that doesn't seem like such a terrible proposition. Exposing a nation with an increasing gap between rich and poor to service among every economic class is a provocative, yet tempting option.

Nonetheless, Mr. Rangel's proposal has its share of potential pitfalls. Would mandatory service backfire and make the voting public more militarized - and even emboldened - by the sheer size and might of our army? It seems like having a small readily active military may be a virtue in itself, as it discourages our involvement in conflicts that vaguely concern us. A large active force may well encourage policy makers to deploy our armed forces as an international police unit.

After Iraq, we can only hope our generation has learned this lesson. The shame in this war is that hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians are dying because of our growing pains. The motivation behind Mr. Rangel's radical suggestion stems from this lesson: How do we prevent elective wars?

I don't know that Mr. Rangel has the answer, but that he is looking for it at all, and is willing to take a firestorm of criticism from all sides just to start this debate, speaks to his effectiveness as a member of Congress.

Our men and women serving abroad live with the consequences of our dire mistake. Although those in service and our policymakers want to leave the Iraqis with a stable country, it seems there is little, if anything, we can do to rectify the mistake of invading in the first place. The Washington Post has reported that the Pentagon sees three options for Iraq: "Go big, go long or go home."

Go big essentially means sending in more troops to crush the insurgency, which for reasons my allotted space simply won't allow for, simply will not work. To put it plainly, by an insurgency's very nature, a large and conspicuous military presence will augment its influence. The go-long option is basically the current strategy to train the Iraqi police force over the course of approximately 18 months. The go-home option is to set a timetable and gradually withdraw, leaving the Iraqis to choose between a shared governance compromise and civil war.

None of these is appealing, and we've given the Iraqi people a raw deal. However, it seems clear that our continued presence will not improve the situation and has done nothing but give factions the time they need to maneuver for influence prior to a compromise. It's time to tell the Iraqi government that the hourglass will no longer be filled with the blood of American soldiers.

Meanwhile, U.S. Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., suggests more troops should be sent into Iraq and claims soldiers there now are, "fighting and dying for a failed policy." Sending more Americans to fight a proxy war for the Sunnis and Shiites is not a solution.

Mr. Rangel's proposal may have more wisdom than you think. If there had been a mandatory draft, we might not be wondering what to do with a country we have inadvertently ravaged.

Comments

I personally am for the draft. However I feel we should step it up a notch or two, and offer felons and those currently in prison a chance to wipe the slate clean by serving in the Army or Marine Corps for a 5 to 10 year term. If they fight & survive, they get a fresh start to enter into society with a clean criminal record. If they try to abandon their post or commit further crimes while serving, double their sentence and send them back to prison. Sadly, thanks to Mr. Lautenberg and his retarded Lautenberg Amendment, some convicted felons who are willing to fight, are not able to do so because of this unconstitutional law. The draft is not new to the U.S. After Pearl Harbor we had the draft, during Korea & Vietnam, we had the draft. 9/11 is this generations Pearl Harbor! Has today’s generation become so spoiled and weak kneed that they think they are above the draft? Our forefathers went through the draft in our countries hour of need, now it's our turn! Draft me; I'll fight for this country any day of the week and twice on Sunday! If you want to live in the U.S. you should be willing to do the same.
Posted by: Robert Stanley | November 26, 2006 8:18 PM

Non violent felons should have an alternative to clean their record. I agree that people should have a second chance and by fighting for ther country that would help gain back the respect of society.
Posted by: Jason | December 3, 2006 4:01 PM

I have personal experience in being a convicted felon whom has attempted military enlistment. I was convicted of a felony at the age of 17, still in high school, tried as an adult, and railroaded by the court to "make an example. Every lawyer I consulted with said as my first offence, this burglary to motor vehicle charge, would have been never have been a felony if it were to have happened in a just about any other city. However, it is with me for life now, even though the prosecutor, the judge, and a few of the arresting officers have in fact been stripped of their jobs/licenses for other non-related curruption convictions. Go figure. Well, I have struggled to aquire a meaningfull life, and I still struggle today, 10 years down the line. It was my first and only criminal conviction other than minor traffic violations. I am not as bitter today as I once was, because I see that there is an ultimate justice for people, uncontrolable by man. I attempted to enlist in the Illinois Army National Guard to gain employment experience in addition to my steady full-time job as a foreman at a hazardous chemical distribution facility. I was only 24 at this time, and am very capable of high stress managment situations. I thought military involvment would enhance my skills, and allow me to pay my fellow citizens back for the life I had enjoyed up to this point. The recruiters tried to work with me as I laid down all the truth of my background on the table. I passed the ASVAB test with solid high score, I recieved a few letters of recomendation, even one from the local brigade's commander himself. It was now up to the DOD to review my application, and approve a felony waiver. I began my enlistment process September 10th, 2001, the day before 9-11, and continued to persue this dream of enlisting after troops were sent to war in various countries in the middle east. I checked with the recruiter every month, sometimes once a week for over a year, until they finally told me my application was denied by the DOD and there was no reason given. I made an effort well beyond what I probably should have, and all I can say is that I tried. It is very frustrating to know that I have become that obsolete to my country because of a small crime, that I was convicted of, which I honestly didn't want any part of. I have all the court papers, the signed "confession" in which I didn't even confess to a crime in, but since it is called a confession, and I signed it, the judge rendered me guilty. A judge that wouldn't even look me in the eye, a judge whom is no longer even allowed to practice law due to his own corrupt nature. I was in jail for this when I was supposed to fill out a selective service card, I don't remember doing that, I think my parents did it for me, but as I read more about the experiences of other convicted felons, I wonder if it realy even matters. At the age of 28 today, I have become less physically fit, and probably not as capable to serve my county, however I would still like to have the chance, even if it is as a weekend warrior in the National Guard. God Bless.
Posted by: C.D.Bone | December 23, 2006 9:32 PM

Post a Comment
If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.