Dodgy Draft Idea

Some folks, like Rep. Charlie Rangel (D-NY), want to reinstate the draft.

But why?

Does Mr. Rangel know that militaries around the world have moved from conscription to an all-professional force in the last forty years? Does he realize that volunteers are generally more effective, more motivated, and have fewer problems than conscripts? Does he understand that if he wants the most proficient military, you need to go all-volunteer?

But that's not what Mr. Rangel is looking for. He and others like him see the military as either a social instrument and a internecine political tool.

The former view says that if some serve, all should; that the military should always reflect the demographics of the nation; and that the life-choices of young Americans are best left in the hands of the government.

This view usually implies that military service is a type of punishment or imposed burden as opposed to an honor. If some people are forced to bear this terrible burden then everyone (or a carefully selected cross section) should have to be thus enslaved. Though military service can certainly be costly beyond description, many are willing to serve, at least in part, out of a sense of duty, honor, and patriotism. And you'd be surprised where you get many of these people: religious, rural and suburban, middle income, and newly immigrated. This describes an average American volunteer for over 200 years, but was never mandated by law.

And why should Charlie Rangel decide whether a young American needs to enter public service? Perhaps some have other plans to contribute to our country? I didn't serve in the military, yet I feel I make a significant contribution to the strength of the fabric of our country… and I started working in this field when I was 17.

But at the end of the day, Mr. Rangel has political motivations. He said, "There's no question in my mind that this president and this administration would never have invaded Iraq if indeed we had a draft and members of Congress and the administration thought that their kids from their communities would be placed in harm's way." It appears that Charlie Rangel is more interested in tying the hands of the President, then defending our country.

I believe that he thinks America is either not really vulnerable or can stand to be knocked down a peg or two. Thus proactively "getting them before they get us" is not real high on his priority list.