quote:

---

"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.

---

quote:

---

House Speaker-elect Nancy Pelosi said Monday that restoring the draft will not be on that list and was not something she supported. "The speaker and I discussed scheduling and it did not include that," said her top deputy, incoming House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by HalfMooner

Rangel has a point, but it's an inaccurate one. The elites have always been able to keep their kids out of the military, or at least out of action, when they wanted to, draft of no draft. (See Bush's easy way out for how not to be put in harm's way during a draft regime.) I know that the draft was perceived as so corrupt when it was last in force that a volunteer force was seen as much more honest.

Here's what I think: An honest draft would make politicians more careful. But there's not going to be an honest draft, and there never was. In fact, the more limited numbers available in a volunteer military are more likely to keep huge future adventurism minimized, at least compared to the Vietnam-scale military that the Cold War draft allowed. There could always be a draft in the face of an emergency, of course, but I don't think we are in one. A citizen's Army made up of draftees is much more an ideal than it ever has been reality -- with a slight exception in WWII, simply because so many were mobilized for that one, there wasn't as much room for corruption.

Rangel is a veteran. He made an honest mistake on this issue. Honest, but I don't agree with him. His ideal would lead to corruption and a more aggressive foreign policy.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by beskeptigal

If they restart the draft I'm immigrating to Canada with my son. Nurses can go anywhere.

By the way, health care professionals can be drafted right now. That part of the Selective Service was only put on hold, not actually stopped.

"Some folks are born made to wave the flag;
ooh, they're red, white and blue.
And when the band plays "Hail to the Chief,"
ooh, they point the cannon at you.

It ain't me, it ain't me;
I ain't no senator's son.
It ain't me, it ain't me;
I ain't no fortunate one.

Some folks are born silver spoon in hand,
Lord, don't they help themselves?
But when the taxman comes to the door,
Lord, the house looks like a rummage sale.

It ain't me, it ain't me;
I ain't no millionaire's son.
It ain't me, it ain't me;
I ain't no fortunate one.

Some folks inherit star-spangled eyes;
ooh, they'll send you down to war.
And when you ask 'em, 'How much should we give?"
ooh, they only answer, "More, more, more."

It ain't me, it ain't me;
I ain't no militarist's son.
It ain't me, it ain't me;
I ain't no fortunate one.

It ain't me, it ain't me;
I ain't no fortunate one.
It ain't me, it ain't me;
I ain't no fortunate son. "

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chippewa

If not "shooting in the foot" this proposal is certainly walking on thin ice. Also, I recall the admonition during the last presidential campaign that if Bush were elected he'd have to initiate a draft.

The only way I see a military draft working is if it were regulated with clearly worded and binding legislation which, with more clarity and legal knowledge than I can muster here, spells out that the draft shall only be invoked during a direct and real threat to the entire United States that would destroy or greatly harm our country. (i.e. WWII scenario.) And further define that it cannot be applied to any kind of preemptive strike or police action. War would have to be officially declared on an actual nation that posed a threat or attacked us and not a concept, like the "war on terror", which is too ill defined and can be applied to anything, included political dissent.

So to sum up, a draft should be only applied to total war wherein every citizen is subject to being either "in the army" or helping the war effort – and willing to do so for clear reasons without political ideology or an administration's ulterior motives. Keep it simple and never the first option unless completely obvious.

(And in case someone is thinking: "How obvious do you mean? What about 911?") 911 was a terrorist attack by a specific group of individuals and the response should have been, and was initially, a police action (which could involve the military.) Supporters of the attackers, the Taliban, were also targeted. Iraq was not involved and its invasion only served to increase terrorism throughout the Middle East. A draft instated to serve vaguely or ludicrously defined slogans (i.e. "to spread freedom") will surely result in domestic protests rivaling the Vietnam era antiwar movement.

---