Charlie Rangel: Bring back the draft

It's a stunt. Rangel introduces the same bring-back-the-draft-so-politicians-won't-start-wars legislation every couple of years. It has zero chance of passing.

Which is not to say a draft cannot happen at some point in the next few years; but if/when that happens, the rationale will be to win the war, not to give pause to future wars.
If it does happen, it'll be in response to severe threat to the legitimate defense of the nation -- probably brought about in the form of exacerbated tensions and in the light of severely depleted fighting capability, both being results of Bush's Iraq policy. Whether battlefield is Iraq or not, who knows?

The benefit of a conscript military, as that NY Times article states as Rangel's intent, will not likely be the major rationale for implementing it.
 
Do we have a "Smack hand on forehead" smiley?

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/11/19/rangel.draft.ap/index.html

This is pointless, stupid, pointless and stupid and pointless and also stupid and pointless and stupid. It's a political game, it will go nowhere, and accomplish nothing but making democrats look like total morons.

I was so happy that the democrats won...now they're not even officially in power and they're acting like idiots.

I'm so pissed right now.

The explanation is too convoluted. Weak game, Mr. Rangel (and I like the guy).
 
One very strange thing this disaster of a war has done for me is to make me reconsider the all-volunteer military. In a way, the situation we have now undercuts our democracy, because swath of military personnel in our society barely cuts across segments that have real economic and political power. That is, the people who might have cared enough to take a close look at why we were about to enter into an optional war, and then how that war was conducted, didn't actually have any personal stake by virtue of sons in uniform. This is the flip-side of the late Milton Friedman's theories of maximum personal liberty. He was a major proponent of ending the draft in the 70's. But with a conscript military, would the country have ever let Bush go to war on such a flimsy case? Would the Congress have willingly ceded its power to declare war? (Well, they did in Vietnam, so who knows.)

Thus we find ourselves in a catastrophic military adventure, with the country never having been geared up to fight to win, and our defense capabilities severely depleted. I now consider a conscript military to be a serious option.

I dunno. I've heard that the reason the US Armed forces decided to go for voluneers only is because the rate of "fragging" increased sharply during the Vietnam War.

Also I recall hearing that family with connections got military jobs for thier sons with low likilihood of getting in harm's way, and of course many draftees opted to cross the Canadian border instead of going to VietNam. IIHC many men enrolled in college, married, or went into teaching for the sole purpose of legally sanctioned defferals.

So I don't think that switching from a all-volunteer to conscript military would make a big difference.

I cheerfully admit that I'm just going on anecdotal evidence and vague memories and could not find a lot of good stats on the web.
 
Last edited:
This is the flip-side of the late Milton Friedman's theories of maximum personal liberty. He was a major proponent of ending the draft in the 70's. But with a conscript military, would the country have ever let Bush go to war on such a flimsy case?

With a draft, wouldn't we hesitate to go to war longer than we should even in cases where it's the right thing to do? Yes, of course we would - that's what democracies usually do anyways, and it would only get worse with a draft.

Would the Congress have willingly ceded its power to declare war? (Well, they did in Vietnam, so who knows.)

Congress essentially DID declare war, both in Vietnam and in Iraq. They don't do it formally anymore because there's a whole lot of stuff that goes into effect which nobody wants to have happen - stuff like price controls and the ability of the executive to essentially seize private property (such as ships) for use in the war effort. If the complaint is that the executive has too much power, the LAST thing you should want is a formal declaration of war by Congress.

Thus we find ourselves in a catastrophic military adventure, with the country never having been geared up to fight to win, and our defense capabilities severely depleted.

How exactly have our capabilities been "severely depleted"? I don't think you have an actual argument on this point.
 
I think you're probably right that the US Military didn't do badly in Vietnam; that it was a political failure -- in deciding to fight an unwinnable contest.

That's the thing, though: it wasn't unwinnable. We lost simply because we gave up. Had we not given up, and had we made it very clear to the North Vietnamese that we weren't going to, they would have stopped. They've pretty much told us that. South Vietnam did not fall to an insurgency, it fell to a conventional invasion from the North Vietnamese army, after we stopped even giving the South even financial support but the North continued to get aid from China. You can argue that it wasn't worth the effort, but to pretend it wasn't winable is simply false. Wars against weaker opponents pretty much never are unwinnable, if the weaker side wins it's almost always because it convinces the stronger side the price isn't worth it, NOT because it cannot be won.
 
How exactly have our capabilities been "severely depleted"? I don't think you have an actual argument on this point.
I will recommend to you General Shoemaker's requests for some billions more than he got (2007 appropriation) to repair and reconstitute a lot of equipment that has significant wear and tear due to 3.5 years of war. Been in and out of the news the past few months.

DR
 
How exactly have our capabilities been "severely depleted"? I don't think you have an actual argument on this point.

To add to DR's comments:

FORT STEWART, Ga. — The pressures that the conflict in Iraq is putting on the Army are apparent amid the towering pine trees of southeast Georgia, where the Third Infantry Division is preparing for the likelihood that it will go back to Iraq for a third tour.

Col. Tom James, who commands the division’s Second Brigade, acknowledged that his unit’s equipment levels had fallen so low that it now had no tanks or other armored vehicles to use in training and that his soldiers were rated as largely untrained in attack and defense.

The rest of the division, which helped lead the invasion of Iraq in 2003 and conducted the first probes into Baghdad, is moving back to full strength after many months of being a shell of its former self.

But at a time when Pentagon officials are saying the Army is stretched so thin that it may be forced to go back on its pledge to limit National Guard deployment overseas, the division’s situation is symptomatic of how the shortages are playing out on the ground.

The enormous strains on equipment and personnel, because of longer-than-expected deployments, have left active Army units with little combat power in reserve. The Second Brigade, for example, has only half of the roughly 3,500 soldiers it is supposed to have. The unit trains on computer simulators, meant to recreate the experience of firing a tank’s main gun or driving in a convoy under attack.

“It’s a good tool before you get the equipment you need,” Colonel James said. But a few years ago, he said, having a combat brigade in a mechanized infantry division at such a low state of readiness would have been “unheard of.”

Other than the 17 brigades in Iraq and Afghanistan, only two or three combat brigades in the entire Army — perhaps 7,000 to 10,000 troops — are fully trained and sufficiently equipped to respond quickly to crises, said a senior Army general.

NY Times Link
 
How exactly have our capabilities been "severely depleted"? I don't think you have an actual argument on this point.
I'll quote Barry McCaffrey in The Army Times:

The U.S. would have to slash combat forces in Iraq to 10 brigades by Christmas to keep the Army from breaking, said retired Army Gen. Barry McCaffrey.
I have plenty more where that comes from. Are you sure you want to pursue the argument that the military is not depleted?

http://www.armytimes.com/story.php?f=1-292925-2363642.php
 
I will recommend to you General Shoemaker's requests for some billions more than he got (2007 appropriation) to repair and reconstitute a lot of equipment that has significant wear and tear due to 3.5 years of war. Been in and out of the news the past few months.

DR

If you're talking about 2007 appropriations, then it hasn't even happened yet. hgc was clearly talking about a depletion which has already occurred.
 
If you're talking about 2007 appropriations, then it hasn't even happened yet. hgc was clearly talking about a depletion which has already occurred.
Yes, which is why the general wants more dough to put the equipment (example, Bradley's, helicopters) through I level and O level repair and refit.

FY07 started Oct 1 2006

DR
 
I'll quote Barry McCaffrey in The Army Times:

In other words, continued large-scale deployments put a strain on the deployed forces. Yeah, big surprise. But how is our DEFENSE curtailed by this? That was your claim. What threat are we unable to meet, or even significantly less prepared to meet, because of our Iraq deployments?
 
Yes, which is why the general wants more dough to put the equipment (example, Bradley's, helicopters) through I level and O level repair and refit.

FY07 started Oct 1 2006

And, as usual, the government is still operating on continuing resolutions rather than the full 2007 appropriations. Which, again, means this hasn't happened yet. This is a real concern, to be sure, but hgc's claim wasn't simply about likely or even possible future problems, it was about problems that have already happened.
 
And, as usual, the government is still operating on continuing resolutions rather than the full 2007 appropriations. Which, again, means this hasn't happened yet. This is a real concern, to be sure, but hgc's claim wasn't simply about likely or even possible future problems, it was about problems that have already happened.
Zig, I don't know why you think an Ostrich approach to materiel readiness is appropriate. This is most unlike you. Materiel readiness is a large muscle movement logistical matter when you look at reconstituting entire brigade's worth of equipment. There is only so much industrial plant available for that level of repair in DoD. Thank 15 years of "peace dividend," "privatization," and "acquisition reform" for that.

No, I'm not bitter. :mad: I'm pissed.

DR
 
Man, that guy is always proposing to bring back the draft, it must be the thing that keeps getting him reelected.
 
Zig, I don't know why you think an Ostrich approach to materiel readiness is appropriate. This is most unlike you.

It's not like me because I don't think you're really understanding my position. What I'm trying to get at is that I don't think hgc really knows how the Iraq war has impacted our defense posture. He made claims about unspecified depletions which have already occured, and I don't think he can back up those claims. It is a separate question of whether we are heading towards problems, or what the optimal course of action going forward is. And as you yourself allude to, a failure to adequately maintain equipment and capacity is hardly a problem unique to wartime.
 
Americans would have to sign up for a new military draft after turning 18 if the incoming chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee has his way

Oh, come on people, the Democrats won in a landslide. It’s a mandate. This is what the country elected. This is what the country wants. Fresh ideas. Now you won’t have to decide if you want to go into the military, the government YOU elected will decide for you. Bravo to all the Democrats who voted against all the Republicans, only because that’s Bush’s party. Have fun in the military (yes, they will draft Democrats too), and see the world. Remember, Republicans=stupid, Democrats=smart, that makes this a smart idea.

Man, when the old hippies said they wanted to bring back the 60’s and 70’s they weren’t kidding.
 
Thus we find ourselves in a catastrophic military adventure, with the country never having been geared up to fight to win, and our defense capabilities severely depleted. I now consider a conscript military to be a serious option.
And I consider a military draft lunacy. In World War II the draft worked because people wanted to get into the fight. In Vietnam the draft failed because people wanted to get out of the fight rather badly. Without commitment you won't be as effective a fighter.

It's unfortunate Bill Clinton didn't give us the "peace dividend" and cut the military spending down to 100 billion. Alas, he boosted it beyond 300 billion! Spend, spend, spend... All that did was increase fat at the expense of muscle. Now, instead of ramping up military muscle to fight the war, most of the money goes into more fat.

If there's really a will to win the war then send in the accountants, find out where the money is being spent, cut the spending that doesn't support the mission, and redirect the money towards the mission. But I know there's no will to win. I'll be pay for the troops is bellow the poverty line for a family of four. Hell, I'll bet it's still as low as $12,500 a year!
 

Back
Top Bottom