Sunday, November 19, 2006

Rep. Rangel Resurrects Draft Talk Again

This is so much sound and fury signifying not much of anything except pandering to the anti-war Left.

Rep. Charles Rangel (D-NY) has once again resurrected talk of a draft. Isn't that lovely. The US has the best military in the world - a professional military whose cadre is made up of an all-volunteer force that is highly motivated and dedicated to the protection of the United States.
Rep. Charles Rangel (news, bio, voting record), D-N.Y., said Sunday he sees his idea as a way to deter politicians from launching wars and to bolster U.S. troop levels insufficient to cover potential future action in Iran, North Korea and Iraq.

"There's no question in my mind that this president and this administration would never have invaded Iraq, especially on the flimsy evidence that was presented to the Congress, 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," Rangel said.

Rangel, a veteran of the Korean War who has unsuccessfully sponsored legislation on conscription in the past, said he will propose a measure early next year.
It's funny that Rangel overlooks the fact that the authorization for military force in Iraq was approved by more than 200 Democrats in Congress, and that they only turned on the war when it turned out that it was longer and more difficult than hoped for. They even voted 403-3 to continue the war in Iraq (Rangel voted to continue operations out of procedural necessity).

Rangel does not want to increase military spending, and wants to increase the size of the military, which run counter to each other. He claims that an increase in the size of the military is necessary to deal with threats like Iran and North Korea, yet he hopes that the draft would reduce the possibility that the US would resort to military force.

Again, Rangel's intention is to hamstring US foreign policy and the defense of the country.

Nowhere does he mention the sweeping increase in military expenditures required by such a draft. The billions that it would take to train and equip a military on an annual basis. The billions that would come from social programs that are near and dear to Democrats.

That's because Rangel would not spend those billions. He would simply take the money away from current military operations around the world so that we'd have a miltiary that seems much bigger on paper, but is incapable of actually defending the US from threats around the world.

There is one kernel of truth in Rangel's comments; the size of the military does need to be increased. We drew down the size of the military far too much during the Clinton years, and we're paying for that drawdown now. We must increase the size of the all-volunteer military, across the board. The world is no less dangerous now because of the fall of the Soviet Union. There are a continuing range of threats that must be dealt with and a small professional military cannot deal with all of them over the long term. A larger professional all-volunteer military could.

The key is funding that larger military, and I don't see Rangel doing that.

Fixed typos above.

Blue Crab Boulevard notes that not only are we a long way from actually needing a draft to meet our military committments, but 70% of the country opposes the draft.

Hot Air and LGF both note that the last time Rangel raised the issue of a draft, it was soundly defeated in the House by a 402-2 margin.

I'd hope that the GOP calls Rangel's bluff, just as they did back in 2004. Back then, it was the Democrat talking point that it was the GOP who would bring back the draft - lying to the public all the while since it was only Democrats like Rangel who were making such claims.

Scared Monkeys further notes that Rangel would like to see the military turned into a jobs program. Sorry Charlie, but the US unemployment rate is hovering near historic lows, and

Others blogging: Sweetness and Light, Wizbang, Woody's Blog, Gribbit's World, Gateway Pundit.

Greyhawk at Mudville Gazette isn't amused by Rangel's intent. Sister Toldjah notes Rangel's shifting excuses for calling for a draft.

Macranger actually thinks that a term of duty would be a good thing - instilling good values in all Americans. While mandatory service would instill common values among the draftees, I think the drawbacks outweigh the positives. Macranger isn't alone. Uncle Jimbo also thinks some form of national service could help provide for the common defense.

Bill's Bites also comments.

Technorati: , , , , .

No comments: