Thursday, November 23, 2006
RANGEL AND THE DRAFT
Congressman Charles Rangel (D-NY) this week renewed his call for a reinstitution of conscription. Despite Rangel's intent to tweak the admnistration on Iraq, and perhaps engage in a bit of personal nostalgia (Rangel is a Korean war vet), his legislation was immediately disavowed by Democratic Party leaders, including Speaker-designate Nancy Pelosi(D-Ca.).
I'm reproducing some of my remarks here from a thread at The Small Wars Council. In 2003, prior to the invasion of Iraq, I took a look at the manpower needs of the U.S. military in an article for HNN:
"Why we should consider bringing back the draft"
Despite the headline ( which are selected by HNN editors, not authors), I'm ambivalent about conscription, as it will not be a magic bullet for our military and strategic problems but it is something that should be considered in combination with other approaches ( like simply raising new divisions of volunteers in the ground forces). The problem is that few solutions of any kind are being seriously considered at all by our politicians, despite urgent pleas from the military leadership like we saw yesterday. Washington is whistling in the dark.
Aside from the question of utility, as a serious infringement upon personal liberty, the American public will only accept a draft if they see a clear and direct need for one. I'm highly skeptical that there is sufficient trust in the government or a sense of urgency in the public mind today, to make conscription politically acceptable. Frankly, I do not trust the current administration to make wise strategic decisions regarding such a use of manpower that a draft would provide and I trust the Democrats even less. Only a military disaster of epic proportions will change the current dynamic.
Finally, many of the advantages to our current situation that would have accrued from a draft required implementation circa 2002, not in 2007. To an extent, the draft question is a debate among politicians about who can close the barn door with the most flourish. They need to move beyond cheap grandstanding and go to work on providing real support to our soldiers in the field. ¶ 8:07 AM
Congressman Charles Rangel (D-NY) this week renewed his call for a reinstitution of conscription. Despite Rangel's intent to tweak the admnistration on Iraq, and perhaps engage in a bit of personal nostalgia (Rangel is a Korean war vet), his legislation was immediately disavowed by Democratic Party leaders, including Speaker-designate Nancy Pelosi(D-Ca.).
I'm reproducing some of my remarks here from a thread at The Small Wars Council. In 2003, prior to the invasion of Iraq, I took a look at the manpower needs of the U.S. military in an article for HNN:
"Why we should consider bringing back the draft"
Despite the headline ( which are selected by HNN editors, not authors), I'm ambivalent about conscription, as it will not be a magic bullet for our military and strategic problems but it is something that should be considered in combination with other approaches ( like simply raising new divisions of volunteers in the ground forces). The problem is that few solutions of any kind are being seriously considered at all by our politicians, despite urgent pleas from the military leadership like we saw yesterday. Washington is whistling in the dark.
Aside from the question of utility, as a serious infringement upon personal liberty, the American public will only accept a draft if they see a clear and direct need for one. I'm highly skeptical that there is sufficient trust in the government or a sense of urgency in the public mind today, to make conscription politically acceptable. Frankly, I do not trust the current administration to make wise strategic decisions regarding such a use of manpower that a draft would provide and I trust the Democrats even less. Only a military disaster of epic proportions will change the current dynamic.
Finally, many of the advantages to our current situation that would have accrued from a draft required implementation circa 2002, not in 2007. To an extent, the draft question is a debate among politicians about who can close the barn door with the most flourish. They need to move beyond cheap grandstanding and go to work on providing real support to our soldiers in the field. ¶ 8:07 AM
Comments:
<< Home
Rangel is posturing.
It is meant to be an attack on "the rich", it is a populist gesture.
There is no way this is going to happen. No one wants it.
To the extent there is any thought behind the gesture, the idea is to make it literally impossible for the USA to ever use military force anywhere outside our borders, since the Moms of America will not let their drafted precious darlings be put in harm's way. If there were a draft, and if it actually managed to rope in people who were very unhappy to be drafted, then this might work.
But even if we had some kind of a draft, the military has not need of the massive annual cohorts ocming out of our high schools. It would still be a small slice. How would that decision get made? Politically. Who would prevail? The well-connected. During Vietnam, the only people who got successfully drafted were those too naive or unsophisticated or patriotic to evade it. Evading it was easy, and going to Canada was a last resort that was, as it happens, easy too.
We'd end up with a less effective military, which would be less equitable in the distribution of its burdens.
It is meant to be an attack on "the rich", it is a populist gesture.
There is no way this is going to happen. No one wants it.
To the extent there is any thought behind the gesture, the idea is to make it literally impossible for the USA to ever use military force anywhere outside our borders, since the Moms of America will not let their drafted precious darlings be put in harm's way. If there were a draft, and if it actually managed to rope in people who were very unhappy to be drafted, then this might work.
But even if we had some kind of a draft, the military has not need of the massive annual cohorts ocming out of our high schools. It would still be a small slice. How would that decision get made? Politically. Who would prevail? The well-connected. During Vietnam, the only people who got successfully drafted were those too naive or unsophisticated or patriotic to evade it. Evading it was easy, and going to Canada was a last resort that was, as it happens, easy too.
We'd end up with a less effective military, which would be less equitable in the distribution of its burdens.
# posted by 
: Thursday, 23 November, 2006
: Thursday, 23 November, 2006
But what do you think of civil service? Many countries have mandatory civil service or military service. With a continued influx of immigrants and globalization adding multiple layers to citizens' identities, a one year program to help instill duty, patriotism and community service would be very beneficial I think.
# posted by : Thursday, 23 November, 2006
: Thursday, 23 November, 2006
Rangel never intended for the draft to be reinstated--it is a way of making a point about who bears the burden of war and whether elites would be more or less willing to commit our troops to combat if their own kin were more or just as likely to enter the fray.
He is making a point about humility and caution in the use of force (not the abolition of it for ever and ever...). We can debate whether he could make this point in a different way, but he certainly doesn't actually want to see the draft return, but rather to have the public debate.
He is making a point about humility and caution in the use of force (not the abolition of it for ever and ever...). We can debate whether he could make this point in a different way, but he certainly doesn't actually want to see the draft return, but rather to have the public debate.
chirol, if those qualities haven't been instilled by the time one is 18, I think it's hard to see how forced labor will do so thereafter. That a sense of duty, patriotism, and shared purpose is manifestly absent can be inferred from the fact that from a population of 300,000,000 there are less than 8,000 Peace Corp. volunteers and there's no particular clamor that the size of the program be enlarged.
Dave:
Unfortunately I have found that politics doesn't work that way. It is fundamentally an arena of competing images, symbols, frames and the manipulation there of. What we tend to think of as gamesmanship, posturing, etc is typically necessary tools of the game. And it wasn't simply a 'message'--it was a catalyst for an actual debate about a topic that garners little discussion.
Unfortunately I have found that politics doesn't work that way. It is fundamentally an arena of competing images, symbols, frames and the manipulation there of. What we tend to think of as gamesmanship, posturing, etc is typically necessary tools of the game. And it wasn't simply a 'message'--it was a catalyst for an actual debate about a topic that garners little discussion.
Chirol, are you sure "identity" matters?
Putting young people in a competitive marketplace situation, such as having them find a job or going to college, would seem far more "Americanizing" than forced group labor.
Post a Comment
Putting young people in a competitive marketplace situation, such as having them find a job or going to college, would seem far more "Americanizing" than forced group labor.
<< Home
