In an editorial today, The New York Times is “distressed to hear that Representative Charles Rangel of New York plans to reintroduce his annual measure aimed at resurrecting the draft.” The note it is politically impossible, but that is not the only reason for their oppositon:
But the idea is flawed as well. Because of the dire situation in Iraq, the Army is indeed having trouble meeting its yearly quota of 80,000 recruits. Yet military leaders nevertheless oppose a draft. They believe you don’t get a highly skilled Army by forcing people to serve against their will, and they are right.
The draft would not demonstrate to young people that everyone must do his or her fair share. It is more likely to convince them that the demand for sacrifice is made mainly on those too poor to avoid it. The volunteer force in Iraq has been a truer cross section of America than the force created under the last draft, which ended in 1973, before the end of the Vietnam War. The wealthy and well-connected could get deferments then or assignments to safe alternatives, and many did. While there are plenty of underprivileged in the current force, at least they are there by their own choosing…
But the urgency of the Army’s current needs requires a different solution. There are many ways for the armed services to meet their recruitment goals outside of general conscription. After all, the Army’s annual quota of 80,000 recruits is barely a drop in the ocean of some 60 million Americans between 18 and 35. Forcing the issue, with a draft, is no solution.
Obviously, Rangel was trying to make a point that the Army is being crushed because so few are enlisting and so few are being affected by this war. The Army is worn down to nothing with groups on their third and soon to be fourth deployment. The more times you are sent back into combat, the more likely you are to become a casualty.
There is a military shift occurring.
Democrats are going to be the best friend the ground troops ever had. Whether it is because so many candidates and legislatures are war veterans or we understand the terrible toll the war is taking on our ground troops or because they have been hung out to dry by this administration, we will not abandon them. Under Bush, funding went to future weapons systems that you could argue are not needed; certainly they aren’t needed now. How many F22 or JSF squadrons are needed? The new X craft navy is needed as that is tailored for close in shallow water. They are like Kerry’s swift boat on steroids. Do we need more huge aircraft carriers? How many Navy battle groups are necessary? Maybe new ones are as the current ones have been used a lot. Do we need new Air Force tankers, new Navy submarine hunter aircraft, and new bombers?
Note: I am affected because these are my projects.
The point is a lot of big dollar; high tech defense projects will be postponed in order to rebuild the ground troops. There is not a need for big leaps in technology but a great need to replace what is worn out. Sending troops to fight without adequate body armor or armored vehicles will not happen if Democrats are in charge. They will only be sent to fight if no other options exist and they will go fully equipped.
A few comments
1 – The Army has had to lower their standards to get more folks. Now they take those with criminal records, abuse history, and non-high-school graduates. The problem is they are not getting quality recruits.
If they want to get a better recruit, there has to be a draft to force all who graduate to enter.
2 – If the mission was worthwhile, then there would be an adequate supply of qualified recruits. The problem is – if it is really a problem – the young are smart enough to smell a rat when they see one.
3 – We should be slamming McCain over his request for an additional 20K troops
What is their mission?
What is the mission this week?
Where is he going to get them?
How is he going to supply them?
“If the mission was worthwhile, then there would be an adequate supply of qualified recruits. The problem is – if it is really a problem – the young are smart enough to smell a rat when they see one.”
That gets to one of the major problems. The problem is not the idea of an all volunteer military but the misuse of the military for such a poorly conceived mission.
There may be some validity to the argument that a draft would increase opposition to the war and force a stop, although that took a long time with Vietnam despite the draft. On the other hand, having a draft gives people like Bush a steady supply of troops, making going to war even easier. The recruiting difficulties is one factor which prevents them from sending additional troops and keeping this going indefinately.
“We should be slamming McCain over his request for an additional 20K troops”
One major problem is that it is doubtful that this would be enough to achieve victory. I had a post recently about war games in 1999 which showed that three times the number of troops there now would have been required fo rthe war and post-war administration of Iraq. That was long before the war. I would suspect that it would take an even larger number of troops to do anything about the mess which has been created there.
McCain might be playing a political game here. Who ever is President in 2009 will have a real mess to deal with, and will have to face the reality that we must get out, but getting out will make things worse short term. He might be doing this for political cover should he be elected. In 2009 he could say that we are in this mess because he was not listened to in 2006 when he called for more troops.
“Democrats are going to be the best friend the ground troops ever had.”
There’s the reality and the political perception. Repubicans have been poor friends to the ground troops but many feel that they are more pro-military than the Democrats. Hopefully Democrats can turn that around with their actions.
The call for the draft is also part of the political perception, which is one reason (beyond the morality of the issue) why I (along with Pelosi and others) feel it was the wrong move to make. Domestically a draft would be more evil than anything Bush has done and could reverse any movement towards Democrats acomplished in 2006. It would especially be damaging among the young, who voted even more heavily for Democrats in 2006. Some studies have shown that if someone votes for a political party in two elections they are likely to support that party for life. It would be a mistake for Democrats to take actions to reduce identification with Democrats among the young.
From KC Buzz Blog:
http://kcbuzzblog.typepad.com/kcbuzzblog/skelton/index.html
Skelton: Rangel has a point
Missouri Democratic Rep. Ike Skelton, on Lou Dobbs’ show last night: “The all-volunteer force is working and has worked. The downside, of course, is — and I recently ran the statistics — the downside on this, as most of the deaths that have occurred in Iraq are young people that come from small-town America or from the inner city. Charlie Rangel should be credited with pointing out the fact that people in the military do not represent a broad spectrum of America.”
~~Posted by Keith Chrostowski
I don’t know that I agree with Ike that the all-volunteer force is working, but I’m glad he is open to what Charlie is saying about who makes up our military today.
I don’t support a draft for the war in Iraq. I do support discussion about a draft for future wars. Iran, for instance. (Tell me we’re joking about going into Iran.)