Drafty Story

The word is out about the draft. Oh, you didn’t know that there was a plan for a draft? Au contraire! Those nefarious Republicans are plotting to send the unwilling to the quagmire Iraq.

And just to show how crafty those Republicans are, check out who they put up to do their bidding!

House:

Charles Rangel, NY
Neil Abercrombie, HI
Corrine Brown, FL
Donna M. Christensen, VI
William Lacy Clay, MO
John Conyers, Jr., MI
Elijah E. Cummings, MD
Alcee L. Hastings, FL
Sheila Jackson-Lee, TX
John Lewis, GA
Jim McDermott, WA
James P. Moran, VA
Eleanor Holmes Norton, DC
Fortney Pete Stark, CA
Nydia M. Velazquez, NY

Senate:

Fritz Hollings, SC

All Democrats! Pretty impressive manipulative technique, don’t you think? And they say the president is dumb!

In all seriousness, there is an email going around to the Democratic faithful, exhorting them to contact their congressional representatives urging them to vote against the Universal National Service Act of 2003|(H.R.163/S. 89). (The bill sits in the Armed Forces Committee slush pile.) No problem with that do I have. I know of no military person who wants to work next to someone who doesn't want to be a part of the team.

However, when I was sitting at one of my friends’ place, her fax came on, distributing all of of the pertinent information about this bill. Well, almost all of the pertinent information.

My friend’s response: “see what Dubya is trying to do?” There was not one word in the fax about the sponsors and the co-sponsors of the bill.

This is the type of mentality that has become too prevalent: anything undesirable is automatically George W. Bush’s fault.

(Thanks to Citizen Smash)

UPDATE: The link to the bill was a temporary one. To view the bill, click on the new link, then on "Bill Status & Summary," then enter the bill number(s). (Thanks, Tony!)

Comments

[McGehee]

You're breaking my heart! I had this over a week ago. And I know you read my blog sometimes because you've commented.

<snivel>

[baldilocks]

I'm sorry, darling.

I actually was prompted to post it as my own story (see about the fax above). Smash's version was the first one I saw after that but before I got around to it . (I'm in transit.)

[Steve Matson]

Also known as the Sixties reenactment bill. Maybe the Hippiies will come back into style.

[StinKerr]

Cong Rangel has been pushing this for awhile now. I saw him on C-SPAN's "Washington Journal" more than a year ago on this subject. Basically his point was that it's only the poor and minorities that are serving in the volunteer forces now and he wants to draft rich kids. I was a bit outraged by his claim as I had just read SMASH's post about his brother's friend Tom Adams who had died in a helicopter accident. I tried to email Cong Rangel to point out that a descendant of two presidents had just given his life in the service of our country but Charlie doesn't receive he only transmits.

I don't see how this will be any different from the draft in the 60's. Those who could afford to go to college avoided the draft with a student deferment like a certain former President (#42)

After all this time I still don't see what the reason is behind this proposed law. I'm sure it's some sort of political/attention-getting/protest type of reason but I just can't fathom it.

We don't need a draft. The Marines say they have more applicants than they can push through their two boot camps. I don't know how the other services are situated, but I'm sure they're not hurting for volunteers either.

I served six years in the Navy and I wouldn't want to depend on a shipmate who was drafted and had a grudge over it. Don't make the fine people who are serving our country now have to put up with the street sweepings that a draft would inevitably produce.

[Marty]

The Air Force won't be taking any new recruits through, I believe, 2006. The Army has enough recruits for the next 3 years. Couple those sentences with what the Marines said above...

Where's the crisis?

The amount of troops is not the problem. Proper application *is*.

[baldilocks]

The fact that the Democrats want a draft is not a new story, yes I know. The fact that the story is being revived in liberal circles minus the names and *party* of its sponsors and co-sponsors, however, is.

[La Shawn Barber]

Hi Juliette!

[Russell]

It's those mind controll rays Kucinich was warning people about!

The rethuglicans are using them to force the sainted Democrats to sponsor this horrid bill!

Thems Repugs are evil, I says. Evil!

[TL]

The Dems obviously have bought into the P.T. Barnum theory regarding their multiple consitutencies. Given what many of those folks are saying, I can't say it's a bad stategy. The problem is, the Dems care more about winning power than the welfare of this country and they are willing to do or say just about anything to accomplish it. The more I listen, the less open-minded I become about them.

[Richard Cook]

J-

having a draft would probably be a very bad thing for the Armed Forces. I am a CPO Navy Reserve with 24 yrs in yrs active and the rest drilling, and over the years we have, through policy, the kind of person we want in the armed forces. Never in my life have I seen such smart, intelligent go-getters. This took immense work and many years to get to this place. We would have to hurriedly rewrite and enact policy to deal with a draft and all that it entails. Training and deploying members that were taken in a draft is geared toward putting out a basic product(quantity). The product we have now is top flight with all of the add-ons and is customizable(quality). Can't beat it.

[baldilocks]

Richard (Chief):

I'm in total agreement. I did 21 years in the AF (AD and Reserves) and I worked with countless numbers of very intelligent people that *chose* to serve.

[John Anderson]

How long before "The Press" picks this up and, yes, blames it on Bush - if only "because Afghanistan/Iraq prove he needs more troops?" Two days?

Just took a "survey" at Reuters: paraphrase "The 911 comission says there were no ties between Saddam and al Qaeda. Do you still believe Bush invading Iraq was correct?" They don't mention that this is part of a single sentence that said no ties of Iraq to 9/11 but probable ties in other areas. Which is what has been said all along, but who remembers that?

[BeckyJ]

I heard about this last year when Rangel started in on it. This spring I had a student come to me in an absolute panic because a friend of his had told him that the draft was being reinstated this summer! I told him he was wrong and bet him $5. I got my $5 the next day. The best way to disabuse people of these ...ummm ... interesting notions is to go to the Congressional bill tracking site Thomas

http://thomas.loc.gov

and look up the bill. Thomas will tell you where it is and the most recent action taken.

[Tony]

Hey Juliette,

Your link to the Act is not going to work, as it's a temp link only. See if this PDF version to H.R. 163 will work:
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=108_cong_bills&docid=f:h163ih.txt.pdf

And here's a PDF link to the Jan. 8, 2003 remarks of Pete Stark (in my district, goddamn him) in support of the bill:
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?dbname=2003_record&page=E40&position=all

Regards,
Tony

[Mike]

Not just Democrats, but 4 or 5 of those are in the Democratic Socialist Caucus (along with Dennis Kucinich and Nancy Pelosi).

Here's a link:

Socialists in Congress

Maybe they figure it has no chance, but they're going to bring it up anyway to embarass the administration.

[fdcol]

People like Charlie Rangel and other liberals will criticize the US government and the US military no matter what system is in place. These are the same people who complained that the draft itself was unfair, because lower class and minority males could not get college deferments like rich white folks.

The current liberal push for a reinstatement of the draft is based on FEAR. They know that the current base of the Democratic Party, pacifistic liberals - who normally detest the US government, who "loathe" just about everything even remotely associated with the US military, who cringe at just hearing the word "patriotism", and who gag at the sight of a US flag waving proudly in front of someone's home or in a shop window - are not the kind of people who enlist in any great numbers in an all-volunteer military. As Vietnam-era veterans age and die off, they are beginning to realize that their pool of potential political candidates with military and combat experience is drying up and will continue to dwindle to almost nothing with an all-volunteer military. They know that their perceived weakness on issues like national defense, intelligence, foreign affairs, etc., will intensify as a result, and their political viability with the American public will continue to drop.

They got what they wanted after Vietnam - no draft. Now they're scrambling to correct their mistake.

[Rustmeister]

I don't see a problem with reinstating the draft, and I wouldn't oppose it if it happened. What's wrong with our young adults serving their country? What's wrong with a wider cross-section of America having a shared national experience?

A Colonel I served with once told us "only 6% of Americans have ever served in the military." I took it as a source of pride, and still do. However, that also means 94% of Americans don't have a clue as to what we've gone through.

What freaks me out is that the Democrats are calling for more troops (which we need), which to me means a stronger military (which we need). If they start supporting the Second Amendment, the "Pubs" will lose a voter.

[StinKerr]

Freaks you out, Rustmeister? How do you think I felt when I saw Hillary Clinton on Fox calling for a larger military? I was absolutely stunned at what I saw as two impossible occurrences at the same time. I was convinced that Sean Hannity was behind her with his hand up her dress working her mouth and doing his best ventriloquist act.

[Jim]

Rustmeister said:

I don't see a problem with reinstating the draft, and I wouldn't oppose it if it happened. What's wrong with our young adults serving their country? What's wrong with a wider cross-section of America having a shared national experience?

Because the experience begins with the self-initiative to volunteer. Period.

Ask any group of 'Nam vets about the differences in service between the conscripts and the "lifers". I'm betting you'll find that there wasn't any difference between 'em in actual battle. But I'm also betting you'll find that virtually all of the forces rear of "the point of the spear", didn't enjoy the same unity of purpose, esprit-de-corps, morale, motivation, etc.

And frankly, most of the anti-war vets I read about these days, are former draftees from back then.

Continuing:

"What freaks me out is that the Democrats are calling for more troops (which we need), which to me means a stronger military (which we need). If they start supporting the Second Amendment, the "Pubs" will lose a voter."

Here's the difference. The Donks will only use a larger military for:

A. Expanded international "meals-on-wheels" deployments, aka Somalia.

B. Signing 'em over, lock, stock and barrel to the Cesspool at Turtle Bay (U.N.), for blue-helmet assignments, to be commanded by the vichy fwench, backstabbing germans and assorted third-world grifters, all seeking more ways to dip their grubby, bloodstained hands deeper into Uncle Sam's pocket.

Count on this, too. A larger military under Donk leadership authoritarinaism, will still be an underfunded, ill-equipped, dispirited and demoralized force.

The Hollow Force of the Carter years is ample evidence of that. Double-whammy when looking at the Clintonian expenditure of force, with virtually no resupply of reserve munitions or equipment. I served during the Carter years, and I experienced first hand the seriously adverse effect of his policies and budgets.

Having a so-called larger military isn't the key. Effectively Leading it, is.

A "larger military" does not automatically translate to a stronger military!

Oh, and don't hold your breath waiting for the Donks to support the Second Ammendment, either.

Jim
Sloop New Dawn
Galveston, TX

[Ken]

I'm a bit mystified that neither the Democrats nor the Administration has made a serious push to expand the military by raising the enlistment caps. That's the right way to expand our military, and it should have been done in late 2001. Reagan built an all-volunteer military about 1/3 larger than ours from a smaller population, so it's not exactly an untested solution.

[McGehee]

I'm a bit mystified that neither the Democrats nor the Administration has made a serious push to expand the military by raising the enlistment caps.

What's to be mystified about? The Democrats aren't pushing to raise the caps because they want that evil word "draft" out there frightening the civilians, which raising enlistment caps won't do.

The administration isn't pushing to raise the caps because they don't see the need to increase numbers at this time.

[birdwoman]

That was a very nasty picture to put in one's head, StinKerr...

[StinKerr]

I hope you enjoyed it, Birdwoman. We also serve who only draw nasty mind pictures. ;-)

[quasimod]

Just another campaign tactic.

McGehee is right about "The Democrats [...] want that evil word "draft" out there frightening the civilians [...]"

Since the Dem first started making noise about "THE DRAFT" (insert scary music here), I've been stating the obvious fact that it is just another campaign tactic.

Every time the dems can get a talking head to say the words "THE DRAFT" (insert scary music here), Kerry gets 1000's more votes in the Fall.

[Rustmeister]

Lots of good points being made here. One thing, I'm sure we could make our forces larger without doing the draft. Not a doubt in my mind.

However, a couple points I'd like to make. One, when I joined the Army in 1980, virtually all my senior NCO leadership had combat (Nam) experience. Most of them used to shake their heads at us and mutter "VOLAR". It was the term used for those of us who were VOLunteer ARmy.

They saw us as coddled and substandard, mainly because the Army upgraded the barracks furniture from grey metal to pressboard with woodgrain veneer. Our basic was considered wimpy, as the drills couldn't hit us, although they had really nice ways of correcting our front leaning rest positions (mostly with punches to the kidneys). R. Lee Ermey wouldn't have made it as a drill in that era. This was a decade before the "stress card" basic training we've all heard about. Listen to the news, and they will say "so-and-so only joined to get the money for college he/she was promised, and now they're dead". The military will never get let off the hook, so why bother? Draft their butts.

Two, I do agree, the Dems would have us doing OOTW a whole lot more, and that's just wrong, as is UN servitude. Recent headlines have shown that the UN isn't what it's cracked up to be. It just gets me that the 'Pubs are letting one of their prime platforms get yanked out from under them. Let's hope they get their act together soon.

[wanda]

Being one of those pussy-assed flaming liberals that the neocons hate, I have to say I agree with you on this one. For weeks I was up in arms about this 'secret draft' agenda, so I decided to do some research. What I discovered royally pissed me off. The Democrats have lost their fucking minds. I still can't abide the thought of another four years of GDDubya & Co. but I have to tell you I am fast losing respect for the Democrats. In my humble opinion the 'centeralist' in this country are fucked. We truly are between the devil and the deep blue sea (rock and a hard place,ect).