Rep. Rangel has again called for a draft. When he did this in 2003, it was just a cute way to make a point about the looming Iraq war.
But now it is just irresponsible. And the logic that
"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,"
is absurd.
First of all, there are always exceptions in the draft for those with the means to take advantage of. Ask Rush's "pyloidnal cyst". Or Cheney about college deferments. Even within the military there are non-combat units for the well to do to find a home with the right patronage. There is no reason for any decision maker to believe his kid will be threatened by a draft if he doesn't want to serve.
Secondly, history is full of people claiming "war will be made too horrible to contemplate" by various technologies and policies. And it has never, ever worked that way, Representative Rangel. Never. Ever. It is absurdly easy to stoke up the troops with a bunch of "tip of the spear of democracy" and "wolfhounds guarding the sheep back home" talk. Hundreds of thousands of men were convinced to climb out of their trenches into the massed fire of No Man's Land in WWI, with the promise of just one more push. Hundreds of thousands of men were sent into the wastelands of Korea and jungles of Vietnam for "one final push", even after the war had raged on for years with draftees. In spite of the certainty of Mutual Assured Destruction, planners schemed about how with a few thousand more warheads, they could win a nuclear exchange.
Your scheme comes built in with escape mechanisms for the well connected, with non military community service given as an alternative. Why would anyone think their kids will fight and die?
The world doesn't work that way, Rep. Rangel. Civilization has a 4000 year legacy of people sending their children off to fight in some dirtball place no one had ever heard of for the greater glory of empire and dear leader. Before that, there were probably cavemen who sent their clans into the next valley because "Uggg tribe have many rock. What they plan? No need for many rock, unless they plan kill us."
Meanwhile, you shift the draft threat squarely onto the democrats shoulders, turning our boogeyman back on us. How on earth does that help us politically? The military doesn't want a draft - they get too many really bad soldiers that way. Bad soldiers are worse than no soldiers, Rep. Rangel.
This proposal doesn't appear serious for that reason. If you think think is some way to out-hawk the hawks, it doesn't work. It makes democrats seem out of touch with the needs and wants of the military. Since our opponents work so hard to foster that impression anyway, it is irresponsible to reinforce that image further.
There is only one way to prevent stupid, unnecessary wars - an educated populace keeping close tabs on their government, working with a Congress that takes its warmaking duties seriously. When that system fails, we get what we deserve. People need to pick their leaders with more care, because it matters. The Democratic party needs to start leading, and no gimmick like "A draft will make it harder to start a war" is going to make up for the lack of leadership like that which was shown in the run up to the current war.
If you want to reduce the likelihood of future irresponsible warmaking, then you must hold this administration accountable for Iraq. That is the only lesson that could carry forward to affect future leaders decision making. Otherwise, you are going to have to do the hard work of educating an ignorant and capricious public more interested in self-indulgence than self-awareness.
<edited to correct name spelling. Stupid phonics, always trying to embarass me ...>
<Another edit from commentary>
Another problem with this whole line of thinking is that it is just reinforcing the idea that somehow a larger military would make military action against Iran or North Korea more successful, and that's what would be needed if we attack those countries.
This is wrong, and self defeating. There is no amount of military presence that would make attacking Iran any less disasterous. It would result in the destruction of most Persian Gulf oil infrastructure. It would result in a long guerilla war and hundreds of thousands of civilian casulaties. It would empower fundamentalism in the Shia faith, and generate tens of thousands of new recruits willing to die to attack the west.
Likewise, there is no number of US troops that makes an attack on North Korea feasible. The South is going to get pounded flat with artillery, and possibly nukes now. There will be an endless insurgency fueled by the casualties of an invasion.
Rangel's argument (and this is granting some supporter's thoughts that he really doesn't mean it) is wrong because it still is playing in the court of military intervention can satisfactorily solve the Iranian and North Korean problems IF enough troops are available. This is entirely the wrong game to play. The point has to be driven home that there is NO military solution.
<edited for no good reason after a couple of weeks>
Well, looks like I was right here. Positive effects on national debate = 0. Negative effects = a lot of people thinking its a democratic position, a lot of dem politicians having to defend against the proposal while the media tries to stir it into meta arguments about dem leadership, a few people pointing out that the military doesn't want the draft.
Rangel, political genius. Not.
Should we take bets on when he brings it up for the third time? And the number of people writing breathless claims of how this will transform the national debate and end war?