A Drafty Wind Coming From Harlem
November 21, 2006 on 6:46 pm | In Main, National |
[Photo of Rep. Charles Rangel courtesy economicswithaface.com]
It seems to happen every couple of years. The Republicans try to scare god-fearing Americans into believing gay marriage will open the door to matrimony between man and dog.
And Democrat Charlie Rangel tries to reinstate the draft.
Rangel, the raspy-voiced and pugnacious congressman from Harlem, has made it a practice to call for a draft every few years.
Typically, his argument for conscription is to make military service more egalitarian. But in his latest pronouncement, he has something more “in mind”:
“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.
Really? “No question”? That quote tells you all you need to know about Rangel’s recurring fantasy. It sure looks like he wants to use military conscription as a means of informing foreign policy. Either that, or the 76-year-old congressman is posturing in a demagogic attempt to remain relevant in the new Democratic majority.
How on earth does Rangel know Bush would have been less likely to send troops into Iraq if Jenna and Barbara were at risk of being put in a tank division and sent to Fallujah? Implicit in Rangel’s assertion is the notion that he himself would be above making decisions of war and peace based on whether or not there is a draft. But others … well … they might not be as smart as the ranking member of the House Ways and Means Committee.
Col. Jack Jacobs was on Imus this morning:
Imus: “He’s full of bologna…”
Col. Jack Jacobs: “Well yeah I think he is. He’s full of bologna and nobody should listen to him … But, he’s — yeah he’s full of bologna on the draft, doesn’t know what he’s talking about. He apparently served in Korea but I think that’s where his understanding of the use of the military instrument of power ended.”
I myself am no fan of the draft. Check that — I am adamantly opposed to it. I was too young and narrowly missed having to register when military conscription was dropped as the Vietnam War was winding down in 1973. By the time President Carter reinstated registration in 1980, I was 23 years old and living in Canada. So much for my show-down with Uncle Sam.
Here’s a thought worth considering. I don’t know who first said the words, but Gene Burns repeated them the other night on KGO in San Francisco: “Any nation that has to force its citizens to fight isn’t worth fighting for.”
And Charlie, you might as well give up on this idea anyway. In 2003, a bill on the draft failed by a margin of 402-3. Sure, a different party is in charge now, but do you really think Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid want to go there? Conscription probably plays well in Harlem, where I’m sure the perception exists that people of color are sent off to die for their country in numbers disproportionate to their representation in the overall population.
I’m no expert on this, but it’s always been my impression the military looks about the same as society in general. And it’s the best example of a meritocracy I can think of. Go get ‘em, Jake.
10 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
Leave a comment
Powered by WordPress with Pool theme design by Borja Fernandez.
Entries and comments feeds.
Valid XHTML and CSS. ^Top^
First, watch what you say around my basset hound Sheila. She’s pretty disappointed after the One Man/One Woman thing passed here last week, and if she finds out my conditional proposal was not in good faith, I’ll be filling bone holes in the backyard for the next year.
But regarding Rengel, since the idea of re-instituting the draft is opposed by people of every political stripe and would, by any estimation, be a disaster for the military and nation defense in general, I have to wonder what Rengel’s political calculation is.
Since his own party objects to a draft, as do the voters in his district, inherent in the calculation has to be the assumption that it will never come to a vote. (In fact, when his previous draft bill came before the House in 2003, Rengel voted against his own bill!) So I think it’s fair to say that there may be a dash of cynicism in this whole affair.
In any case, the only thing I can figure is that Rengel thinks that if he can scare some of the fence sitters into thinking they may actually have to go and fight, that will increase the pressure to abandon the war. (Kerry used the draft ploy in the 2004 election and I know from personal experience that it worked on at least one voter.)
But still, I can’t see how this works works as a political calculation. If you put a thousand people in a room who think that a draft is a reasonable possibility, and then asked them if they support the war, I can’t imagine you would get 2% support. Anyone so out of touch with reality as to think that the draft will ever come back, isn’t exactly a student of history, defense policy or geopolitics. He or she is more likely to just be giving you a minute between a MySpace posting and his or her next big Wii adventure. So the whole thing just looks like a pretty silly joke.
Although considered in the context of the Page program, it might be fun to see what kind of activities Charlie Rengel and our venerable Congress could think up to keep 17 million 18-20 year old non-military serving boys and girls busy for two years of their lives.
Comment by jake — November 21, 2006 #
Terry:
As the new House Ways and Means chairman, I don’t think Charley Rangel needs to worry about being relevant. I think he believes what he says. Trouble is, he’s talking about the Vietnam War, when casualties were disproportionately black and poor. (Back when there was a draft, ironically enough.) If I recall correctly, in Iraq the U.S. casualties have been mostly white and rural. Maybe Charley is just trying to show that Democrats can be just as out of touch as Republicans. Imagine that!
Comment by Steve Barlow — November 21, 2006 #
I’m not sure why all of you seem to be completely missing the point (which I think is pretty clear).
I’m with Rangel on this one because he’s right. If a draft had been in place prior to Bush’s reign, there would have been a far greater backlash against the aggressive (and completely wrong) steps taken in Iraq that would have prevented things from getting to the point they are now.
I certainly don’t want my kids to be sent to die, but I don’t want a bunch of other Americans (with fewer choices than my kids) to be sent to die either. When it comes to defending the country from an actual threat (unlike the current situation), then I’d be willing to take that risk (and I think we should all share it equally).
Comment by charlie derr — November 22, 2006 #
The Vietnam draft was never a fair cross section of America. According to the NYT our current volunteer army is demographically more even. If there were a draft now, and it seems impossible, the rich and powerful would be spared as they always have been. Rangel is grandstanding to keep our attention on the failures of the war and racial inequities. I hope he will know when to drop it for more realistic and practical legislation.
Comment by Peter Halle — November 22, 2006 #
Steve,
I agree W&M chairman will make Rangel a powerful man, but let’s face it, at 76 he will be a dinosaur — certainly nothing like the new generation of mostly moderate Dems who were elected to replace the Republicans in Congress.
Charlie,
I understand Rangel’s point and you are correct that a draft will galvanize opposition to any war, as it did when we were in Vietnam. I just don’t think using the draft as a means of informing foreign policy is a wise move. If we were wrong to go into Iraq, then let’s deal with the wrongheadedness of the policy and let’s throw the bums out and make them pay for it with their jobs (I guess we already did that).
I think we all know the well-connected can avoid a draft anyway. And if they reinstate it, anyone who wants out will say they are gay. During Vietnam, there was much more of a stigma attached to such a declaration. And since the military leadership is mostly against allowing gays to serve openly, I don’t think you will see a repeal of Don’t-Ask-Don’t-Tell. A draft might make some of us feel better, but I think it’s doomed to failure.
Peter,
Agree completely.
Comment by Terry — November 22, 2006 #
The argument that “if there’s a draft the rich and powerful will mostly avoid it anyhow” just doesn’t fly with me. It’s true to a certain extent (of course there will be a few rich and/or powerful folk who choose to use connections to avoid it), but that doesn’t change the fact that most people throughout society won’t actively oppose participating.
If this whole enterprise ends up removing some of the ridiculous homophobic bias present in our armed forces, then I’m all for that (whether it’s a side-effect of what you predict or because the inclusion of a different cross-section of society simply makes it inevitable).
As for informing foreigh policy through forced citizen participation in the military, I really don’t see the problem with that. But that’s because I believe that if the president can’t convince most of the American public that we need to go to war, then we simply shouldn’t be going to war. What am I missing here?
Comment by charlie derr — November 22, 2006 #
Terry and all:
to me, it appears that rangle is preaching to his congregation (voter base), on the inequities of an all volunteer military. The basic premise being that more minorities, or poor kids sign up that richer non minorities. I don’t disagree with that theroy, but I do not think its as imballanced as he says it is. That being said, mney and power can get you out of military service…that will never change!
Comment by Marshall Miles — November 22, 2006 #
“The Vietnam draft was never a fair cross section of America.”
Right you are Peter. Caucasians were over represented in both service and casualties. That’s what you meant, right?
RACE AND ETHNIC BACKGROUND
* 88.4% of the men who actually served in Vietnam were Caucasian, 10.6% (275,000) were black; 1% listed as others.
* 86.3% of the men who died in Vietnam were Caucasian (includes Hispanics); 12.5% (7,241) were black; 1.2% belonged to other races.
* 170,000 Hispanics served in Vietnam; 3,070 (5.2% of total) died there.
* 86.8% of the men who were killed as a result of hostile action were Caucasian; 12.1% (5,711)were black; 1.1% belonged to other races
* 14.6% (1.530) of non-combat deaths were among blacks.
* 34% of blacks who enlisted volunteered for the combat arms.
* Overall, blacks suffered 12.5% of the deaths in Vietnam at a time when the percentage of blacks of military age was 13.5% of the total population.
* Religion of Dead: Protestant–64.4%; Catholic–28.9%; other/none–6.7%.
SOCIO-ECONOMIC STATUS
* 76% of the men sent to Vietnam were from lower middle/ working class backgrounds.
* Three-fourths had family incomes above the poverty level; 50% were from middle income backgrounds.
* Some 23% of Vietnam vets had fathers with professional, managerial or technical occupations.
* 79% of the men who served in Vietnam had a high school education or better when they entered the military service. (63% of Korean War vets and only 45% of WWII vets had completed high school upon separation).
* Deaths by region per 100,000 of population: South-31, West-29.9; Midwest-28.4; Northeast-23.5
Comment by jake — November 22, 2006 #
Jake, I was referring to economic demographics, ie income levels. Not racial; and I don’t appreciate your ugly assumption. And your socio-economic status is not a complete story. How many college grads were drafted, for example. Or those from well-off families. That’s what we were blogging about earlier. And compare Vietnam economic stats with the current conflict.
Comment by Peter Halle — November 23, 2006 #
Wow! is John Kerry writing to this blog under various pseudonyms?
And I thought the pizza letters were elitist in nature.
Comment by Paul Bartomioli — November 23, 2006 #