The Bogus Draft
Another Lunatic Liberal Ploy
By D.W.

The Honorable Congressman Charles Rangel, chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, wants to reinstate the military draft, or so he says. Anyone turning the age of 18 would be susceptible to mandatory military service and he will put it up for a vote next year. He tried the same shenanigans in 2003 when it was voted down 402 to 2, albeit in a Republican controlled House. It is worthy to note the Representative Rangel was himself drafted during the Korean War and served honorably.

This draft measure is just another political ploy allowing him to grandstand and make a point.

Few politicians from both parties in Washington want a draft, especially not the Democrats. And no one in their right mind really thinks Nancy Pelosi and crew would permit such a thing?

The Democrat kook base in San Francisco would hang Pelosi from the Golden Gate Bridge if she voted for a draft. The Clintons, who are the real puppet masters in the Democratic Party, would never jeopardize Hillary’s chances for election in 2008 with such a stunt.

But more importantly, the Department of Defense and all its branches absolutely do not want a draft.

Almost no professional soldier, sailor, airmen or marine thinks a draft is a good idea; it would probably be detrimental to the health and welfare of the armed services. Most senior military officers and NCOs’ who have served under both a volunteer and conscripted military will tell you that a volunteer military is far superior in quality with fewer discipline problems. Most branches of the military have been reaching their recruiting goals or getting very close to it in recent years. Consequently, the military is doing just fine without this draft nonsense.

Congressman Rangel’s stunt is based upon the false premise that a conscript military would make politicians more hesitant about going to war or in continuing to wage war.

Now this causes me to really scratch my head because the United States had a conscript army at the beginning of World War Two, Korea, Vietnam, and with a near miss in Cuba as well as a few other times in history. If a conscript Army would cause politicians to start fewer wars, how come it didn’t deter these conflicts?

I think what Congressman Rangel is getting at is that a draft would be a great way of rousing up mass student protests for the anti-war movement. That is, if the fat dope smoking slacker college age youth are drafted they will start big draft card burning rallies just like the sixties. Those liberals sure do miss their glory days of 1968 and they are probably distressed that today’s youth don’t display the same ideological fervor that they once did.

Yes folks, this draft ploy is probably just another “get out the youth vote” scam based upon fear tactics.

Congressman Rangel does have a point that the children of the Washington crowd have fewer children or relatives in uniform. Many politicians themselves have no military experience coming from privileged families. This does in a way make them less personally accountable for their political actions in committing the military to combat. It would benefit the nation if more elected officials were veterans and had children in uniform but that doesn’t justify the creation of a drafted military.

It is also true that the expansion of the military in any significant numbers would stress the ability of recruiters who are reaching their maximum numbers while maintaining quality recruitment. To induct many more recruits than we currently are would require most services to lower enlistment standards and accept less capable recruits. This is never a good thing and we probably do need to increase the combat power of the army and marine forces. Of course Rangel may want a military that provides a lot of government jobs for people who might otherwise be loafers and jailbirds.

However, a draft would not provide a very good solution to the military’s current recruitment problem and would probably serve as a big distraction. Conscription worked better back in the day because at least men were men and not metro-sexual back then. There were plenty of Americans who may not have liked the military lifestyle but they did their duty because it was what a man had to do. Men of the current generation have grown so accustomed to an easy lifestyle and have become so feminized that they have no concept of duty or honor. These men would be difficult to indoctrinate in the warrior ethos and make poor soldiers and sailors.

Our father’s military also had a much harsher discipline than our current military does. I have been told that back in the day if a conscript got an attitude or wasn’t measuring up, the sergeants solved the problem with a little wall to wall counseling. They took the young draftee behind the wood shed and gave him a lesson he would not soon forget. Even the German army that has mostly conscripts’ still uses that same philosophy and reluctant recruits will a beating from the MP’s and police when they fail to report.

Discipline in the modern military is based mostly on motivation, reason, and financial pressure, although group cohesion can be very influential. Problem soldiers are just mustered out with a general or worse type of discharge. Unwilling conscripts who have never displayed a desire to serve in the military would find a very easy ticket out without a lot of penalties for failure. These penalties would probably not jive with the liberal sensibilities of today’s politicians who would have to impose them.

Thus, military commanders would have to waste an inordinate amount of time on paperwork to get rid of unwilling conscripts who face few barriers to discharge and few consequences for failure. Luckily, Rangel’s idea is just a hollow political stunt that will never pass into reality, especially not in a liberal congress.

Any opinions or views expressed herein belong solely to the author and does not represent any employer, organization, political party, governmental agency, or any other entity and do not necessarily reflect the views of the site owner or its participants.