Rangel is Right
In this Post article Kurtz discusses Rangel's proposal to reinstate the draft. Kurtz writes that the notion of implementing a draft so that lawmakers will withdrawal troops based on fears that their on families will be sent "has to be weighed against the broader impact on millions of young Americans whose lives, studies and fledgling careers would be disrupted by such a policy. Why resort to a draft when we can fill the military ranks with those who, for reasons ranging from financial incentives to patriotism, are willing to sign up on their own?"
Take a look at this DOD report that looks at trends in enlistment propensity. In 1996 almost 60% of recruits stated they joined for educational funding and job training while only 1 in 10 cited duty to country as their reason for joining. So we aren't filling military ranks with patriots we are filling them with people who can't afford education and believe the military is their only option for getting ahead.
If college education was made affordable to the people who join the military then I wonder whether recruitment would drop 50%. That aside, Rangel's draft proposal is a good idea. It's about time that young Americans be forced to stand behind our foreign policy. If they aren't prepared to support it then it needs to change, which I think is Rangel's point...
Take a look at this DOD report that looks at trends in enlistment propensity. In 1996 almost 60% of recruits stated they joined for educational funding and job training while only 1 in 10 cited duty to country as their reason for joining. So we aren't filling military ranks with patriots we are filling them with people who can't afford education and believe the military is their only option for getting ahead.
If college education was made affordable to the people who join the military then I wonder whether recruitment would drop 50%. That aside, Rangel's draft proposal is a good idea. It's about time that young Americans be forced to stand behind our foreign policy. If they aren't prepared to support it then it needs to change, which I think is Rangel's point...
posted by mochi at 1:40 PM
13 Comments:
There is a lot of apathy about foreign policy among all`. During Vietnam, the young were engaged was seen by the protests and other activities. They had a vested interest in being knowledgeable and engaged since there was the possibility that they would be drafted and sent overseas. Today, there is no vested interest since the draft does not exist. If one is to be instituted, it might be a wake-up call for all who are not paying attention.
Hi Mochi!
Are you sure you are reading Rangel right? Conscription is the cornerstone of socialism, and Rangel would probably consider himself a socialist.
-Jack
Sure he's a socialist, and in this case I agree with him. He's interested in the good of the people not the good of some people. If we won't all put ourselves behind a policy then it isn't a good policy. Am I misssing your point?
It is Rangel's point. But why should people like me who despise everything about our foreign policy- if you can call it that- be forced to go fight a war that Ill prob end up getting killed or maimed in?
I dont care what Rangel is or where he's from- plenty of his fellow Democrats voted for this war. And Im sick of all this garbage they were mislead. These clowns were around during Clinton and they knew damn well what was going on in that country and how things really were. I dont doubt for a second Democrats used that vote so they could cry about being misled and use it to their political advantage. Just like the Republicans abused their Congressional majority and cried "9/11" over everything- something that should never have happened in the first place. These people are all ridiculous.
I understand his what he is trying to argue but it is flawed and there is so much he is wrong about. No one forced any of those kids to join the military. And theyre definitely not all poor inner city kids. I always wonder what the other side says about these things, and I came across a column by Ollie "Iran-Contra" North:
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/OliverNorth/2006/11/24/feeling_the_draft
But I give Rangel credit as being one of the few principled ones who has always stood up for what he believes in. He was against this war from the beginning. Unlike the rest of his spineless party, the man is a patriot.
If people like you were forced to serve we would not be in Iraq.
During my college struggles back in 03, I threw the military out there as an idea, when I had really no direction. Just threw it out there- I thought my dad was going to beat me for even mentioning it, given what had just started in the middle east.
At first I was pissed about Rangel's idea- as I was the first time when it was a two paragraph story buried on p.8 or 9 of any newspaper a few years ago. But, he has the people thinking doesnt he?
It kind of can go beyond this war, because people are apathetic and complacent in general, sometimes you need that kick in the behind I guess.
So, Mochi, you are saying that conscription to send involuntary soldiers to Iraq is the principled thing to do? Conscription or no conscription the soldier goes where they are told--we would be in Iraq either way.
-Jack
Yes. If there was conscription there is absolutely no way congress would have authorized the war in Iraq without a real investigation of the intelligence. An investigation the would have revealed how weak the adminstrations argument was.
I guess then if we follow this logic, then Veitnam, the Cold War, Korea and the other wars where we have used conscription "made sense" and were justifiable?
The way I see it, if Rangel believes this, he is either soft in the head or an idealist. I personally think he is just a politician.
"In 2003, several congressmen (Charles Rangel D-NY, James McDermott D-WA, John Conyers D-MI, John Lewis D-GA, Pete Stark D-CA, Neil Abercrombie D-HI) introduced legislation that would draft both men and women into either military or civilian government service, should there be a draft in the future. The Republican majority brought the bill up for a vote in the House of Representatives. It was defeated by a vote of 402-2."
If that isn't politics in play, I don't know what it is.
Governments go to war when they want to conscription or not--just look at history.
-Jack
It really is politics in play. It was when Rangel proposed this a couple years ago. Either way, this isnt going to happen. What would happen in this country if a draft was reinstated would be disastrous.
Hey, WSC, I agree! (not about the crackhead part. ha!--just wondering where the NL's are) Mochi, you ok? We haven't heard from you in a while and WSC had to come over to my blog to comment. (Answered you, BTW, WSC)
-Jack
Hmm... ok, lets see.
GLOBAL WARMING IS A HOAX!
GEORGE BUSH SHOULD HAVE BEEN TIME'S PERSON OF THE YEAR!
Think that'll work, WSC?
-Jack
Jack Abramoff isnt really a bad guy.
Post a Comment
<< Home