Political Discussions
The DRAFT?!
Posted by Agit8r • 2/24/09 • Subscribe to this Discussion [RSS] • Report This Topic
Topics: biden, compulsory civilian service, conscription, draft, kerry, rahm, universal civilian service, universal service
In Jan 2007, Charles Rangel of NY sponsored H.R.393. The brief description from the Library of Congress' THOMAS title page reads:
"To require all persons in the United States between the ages of 18 and 42 to perform national service, either as a member of the uniformed services or in civilian service in furtherance of the national defense and homeland security, to authorize the induction of persons in the uniformed services during wartime to meet end-strength requirements of the uniformed services, to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to make permanent the favorable treatment afforded combat pay under the earned income tax credit, and for other purposes."
Simular suggestions have been made in Rahm Emanuel's 2006 book "Big Plan" and John Kerry's 2003 book "A Call to Service" as well as PPI, DLC, and Third Way sites.
Just wondering what others under 42 (ie. potentially DRAFT-AGE!) think about digging ditches and picking up litter at their governments pleasure?
User Comments
-
Charles Rangel is a pond scum dirtbag who is in trouble as it is. Who are these people to say that a person between this age group should serve there country? We have enough people that volunteer on their own as it is. -
This bill has never been voted on. It was submittet to the Ways and Means committee (which Rangel heads) and has been sitting there since. I'm also very disapointed with Jim McDermott of WA 7th district (across the state from here in Spokane). These people are just not in touch with reality.
-
I totally agree
-
Thanks. I think its important to note that even though it hasn't been passed, it hasn't been voted down either. That its just sitting there in Rangel's own committee, makes me a little suspicious.
-
-
It was, at one time, not beyond the realms of possibility that the US would have to introduce the draft due to overstretch and failure to hit recruiting targets.
However this is somewhat less likely now. There seems to be some evidence coming through that the credit crunch has resulted in an increased recruitment rate. People need work.
Having said that though it is worth remembering that in terms of personnel the US is probably operating somewhere near the limit of it's tolerance. Troop reductions in Iraq are going to be offset by increased troop deployment to Afghanistan. If anything goes wrong in Iraq, or something unexpected crops up, maybe that H.R.393 will have the dust blown off it. -
Kinda my thought. The escalation in Afghanistan reminds me of how LBJ was overcautious not to be thought of as a p*ssy on foriegn policy, resulting in the Vietnam quagmire. I did notice the weasilyiness though, of including the "choice" of civilian service instead. Given the wonks' eagerness to install compulsory civilian service, this seems more likely the intent.
-
The military doesn't even want a draft, because that would turn it into a clearing house and caretaker of all kinds of people and problems it would rather not even have to deal with.
It's also politically impossible unless there is dramatic turn for the worse in our security.
Still, what people forget is that historically the draft was once integral to governments of and by the people, because they were harder to use for things that the public didn't approve of, such as suppressing the public. (The draft in American-speak was called universal military conscription in the nineteenth century.) A private army, on the other hand, was a tool in the hands of monarchs who answered to no one. These circumstances led to that whole militia thing in the US constitution, and they relate to the traditional hatred of standing armies in Britain and the US.
Of course, we in the US have got a kind of mixed system these days. The army is volunteer and contract-based, so it looks like the old absolutist standing army, but citizens in and out of the army still look at it---and rightly so---as a people's or citizens' army. Public opinion still matters to a government's ability to make war, not simply because of Congress's power of the purse, but also because of its relationship to the armed forces. Using private contract forces such as Blackwater, on the other hand, harkens back to those old kings. -
Obama is calling on people to serve the country voluntarily in exchange for college tuition money, which is a good idea.-
this "volunteerism" could be very benificial to those "underserved schools" and such--if implemented effectively. I have to wonder however if greater access to college will drive up costs thus necessitating further and more coercive programs. Compare to James Madison's ideas regarding higher education:
"it is better for the poorer classes to have the aid of the richer by a general tax on property, than that every parent should provide at his own expence for the education of his children, it is certain that every Class is interested in establishments which give to the human mind its highest improvements, and to every Country its truest and most durable celebrity. Learned Institutions ought to be favorite objects with every free people. They throw that light over the public mind which is the best security against crafty & dangerous encroachments on the public liberty"
Of course in our modern political climate, such would be described as "Soviet redistribution" by Sean Hannity, and unfortunately even many liberals buy into this and resort to a more moderate or "Third Way" approach. It's really too bad. -
A college education is one of the best investments the government can make. Educated people earn far more than non-educated -- thus pay a lot more in taxes. They also tend to have fewer children.
As far as running up the price of tuition, the cost of college administration seems to be the main factor for driving up tuition. The price of a college education started to skyrocket in the late 90s and has continued to rise without a high correlation of increased enrollment. -
most uneducated people tend to not vote for democrats so that won't happen.
-
So they listen to Rush Limbaugh but vote for democrats anyway? Weird.
-
?
-
-
I'm noticing an almost irrational fear of compulsion in at least one discussion participant here. In case anyone forgot, we make the state. It is ours and it serves us. It is not some alien body. We proved that again on Nov. 4th.
-
well considering out celebraty in chief trots around like a show horse at chicago bulls games and goes to interviews, this furthers my belief that people voted for him because he could talk well and knew nothing else.
-
-
We make up the Government. We rule over the state. The state is made up of those we elect to serve us. If we make up the state and may be compulsed to serve each other, that is another form of government. If its indeed me that you are referring to, we can chalk it up to not attending kindergarten. I didn't learn to share my crayons... damn I'm all screwed up now!
-
Isonomist, why exactly did you take my nickname? -
I had no idea there was an Isonomist out there. How do you change nicknames?
-
I have no idea. I appreciate your kindness.
I've been Isonomist since 2001. Would you like to see my blog? isonomistblog@blogspot.com.-
I see. Isonomy was the principal behind the enlightenment. The principal of equality before the law. Enlightenment principals only went so far during that generation, and then began to erode. Even an enlightened despot like Catherine the Great was only able to do so much. The colonial intelligentsia referred to a government based on the principal of Isonomy as "republican." Nowadays that word carries certain connotatations due to a political party that uses the name. I had thought that such a rather obscure word to the population at large might not be taken, and sure enough BC allowed it. Come to find out that there is also another Jefferson's Mammoth on blogger. So much for originality. Gender inequality in politics perhaps escapes my notice here in Spokane, WA. We have a woman serving as Mayor, Congresswoman, Govornor, and both U.S. Senators. History suggests that that change will come to the rest of the nation as well. Rights and priveledges granted to black men have always preceeded those same rights being extended to women. I noticed that you seem to have changed your username to RealIsonomist. How did you do that?
-
-
or, I guess you could google the nickname, they're all me except where they're you. *L*
-
The draft will not happen. If it does, the government will not have a chance to enforce it before people (such as myself) revolt.-
Not if they 'extreme rendition' you first. Might as well pledge your love for Big Brother before they bust out the rat-mask.
-
I'm a mad scientist in training. If they try, they will lose so many men in the process that it won't be worth it.
-
-
As someone who was actually drafted, let me say first that being drafted isn't so much the problem as being sent off to war. That said, I find it hard to see the draft coming back given the enormous cost involved in resurrecting the infrastructure needed to house that many recruits. Not to mention the enormous cultural shifts since the last draft. Good God, now they are talking about sending overweight recruits to fat farms lest the rigors of basic training prove too arduous. My old drill sergeant is surely having a good laugh over that one.-
Part of my point was about the forced labor. If not somehow tied to national defence, it would violate the 13th Amendment.
-
I would be opposed to any kind of national service that was compulsory. On the other hand the Federal government is very adept at making a benefit available only under certain conditions, one of which might be a stint in national service of some kind. We already have some of that now. But on your original point, I don't believe that a military draft is in the cards anytime soon.
-
-
Except in the cause of national defense, I'm against the draft. Then the hard part is to define national defense. Vietnam, to me, did not qualify as national defense. Iraq, to me, does not qualify as national defense.-
Maybe you could think in terms of a situation where the existence of the nation is being threatened, though I would expand that to include what was at stake in Europe in the first half of the twentieth century. Conscription has really only been necessary for interstate warfare among relative equals or in some cases where the little guy needed total mobilization to deal with the big guy.
Of course, this isn't just about what is necessary. It's about what is politically feasible. You would need the vast majority of the general public to accept it. That threshold is much higher, I believe, than the one for sending soldiers to war under our current system. -
It wouldn't happen. There would be no way of forcing people into the military. Not one person in the Military would want to go to war with someone who is not willing to do their part. The average citizen is not willing to do their part. That is why it's all volunteer.
However the military is not currently having a problem with enlistments at this time. Record highs right now. Wish I had put my recruiter package in. -
Woodrow Wilson was in clear violation of the constituion. Not suprising, since he believed that the English system of government was superior.
-
Betty, using constripts in battle is an old practice. The people who actually believe in the fight can use the others as cannon fodder.
-
Yeah understood, xmarks, however that old practice has died. Too much time would be spent babysitting. The average American is spoiled and unwilling to do anything unless they've chosen to do it themselves. That's fine. I think they know that it wouldn't work and that is exactly why this little non issue has literally been dropped.
-
The tradition is alive and well in many countries today. Today's American culture currently is against it but what about tomorrows?
-
It is alive in many countries. However if you force people into the service here you take a chance at ruining one of the strongest forces out there.
A lot of times people tend to think that the people in the military had nothing better in their lives. On the contrary. A lot of people go in with their degree or are finishing their degree and decided that they wanted to do more. Some people came from military families and they are proud of that fact. They want to keep up the tradition.
For the most part people don't join as a last resort but as part of their personal plan. There are so many parts of the military that most people don't understand. A proud tradition and strong sense of what it is to be an American and to live the dream. I've learned so many things that I will never learn outside of the military and have so many opportunities now that I would never have had before. I have sense that I've accomplished something that is great than myself.
Tell me that pulling someone out of their normal life and putting them into a world and a way of life that is so foreign to them that they would take from it what the rest of us have?
-
Add Your Comment
Login to leave a message.
