Well, that bill did get a little light attention when Hollings and Rangel were rumbling about the draft around the beginning of that year. Media attention did not blossom for several reasons. First, the bill had no chance in hell of passing. Outside of a current crisis, there is no way Congress could re-instate the draft. If they did, it would be hugely unpopular, and a lot of politicians would be looking for new jobs at the end of there term. That begs another question: Why would Rangel and Hollings introduce a bill they knew had no chance of passing.
The answer would seem to be political maneuvering. Hollings and Rangel are huge practitioners of racial and class warfare politics. By merely introducing the bill, they can argue that the War on Terror is being fought disproportionally by the poor, and disproportionally by blacks, and that the cost of war should be spread out by the government to all social classes. Both those claims were refuted by the blogosphere. Also, look at the timing. It was shortly before we went into Iraq. I'm sure Hollings and Rangel were trying to engineer a new generation of anti-war protestors (ala Vietnam) by hanging the spector a potential draft over the heads of America's youth. Oh, and one more thing-despite the fact that it was introduced by Democrats, the rumor of a draft could be hung around George Bush's neck in the upcoming election.
Why did the media not give it a lot of airtime and column inches? Well, Hollings' and Rangel's plan was transparently political. It was also tough to make news out of a bill that stood no chance of ever making it to a vote. Third, Hollings' and Rangel's politics are so shrill that it doesn't play to 98% of the country. Finally, if you were a liberal reporter, would you want to cover a story about two Democrats trying to bring back one of the things you hate the most? Porbably not, because it reflects negatively on your party, and thereby yourself.
To read more, you can go here, here, here, here, and here.
3 comments:
Thanks for taking the trouble of re-posting and including my comment.
I am scared, not for myself (age > 26), but for those kids who are in the 16-17 years area. They are going to be 'ready' if and when the bill passes. With the way the current crisis is, a draft may become necessary in a couple of years.
Yes, it has been introduced by Dems and it could be for the reasons you mentioned. One reason why I may point fingers to the current administration is something that is purely 'what if'. What if we had planned the war better, so we had a good exit strategy. What if we had not even gone to war. Such questions can only be answered by the current administration.
If there was no war, or if we had exited quicker, then I would think that the question of a draft would be ridiculous and utterly laughable.
But in today's world, it does seem like it would become necessary, what with the daily images of soldiers dying, mothers-to-be crying and no end in sight to the Iraqi mess. The will to sign up for armed services will definitely go down over time, if such events continue.
And I would blame the present Government and its advisors for the misfortune that we are in today.
I understand your concern, but I assure you that the draft WILL NOT come back unless something terrible like a nuclear detonation or a destating Bio-chem strike occurs on our soil, and it appears that more than one nation helped it in some way. Remember, we still do elect the people who pass these bills. They know it, and they know that voting for a draft is a sure way to end their political career. The United States will only implement a draft in the case of total war.
Don't count on the military supporting a draft bill. Drafted GI's are morale problems, and the last thing the military wants is a widespread morale problem. It makes the fighting forces much less effective. Secondly, they've closed so many bases over the years that a major draft would have the military busting at the seams. It would take more than a year for the military to prepare for an influx of trainees.
Now, let's say the unthinkable happens, and we are hit with some massive attack, and a draft is implemented. Don't think our current 16-17 year olds wouldn't be able to handle it. Every generation faced with a draft has handled it, and this generation would be no different.
I like your very measured tone in discussing this topic, but I really do disagree with your analysis. First, the exit strategy. "Exit strategy" is a Democrat talking point. Any military strategist worth his or her salt would tell you that having a tailored exit plan before going to war is impossible. Heck, the battle plans usually go out the window after the first engagement, let alone a plan for leaving after a war. Second, I don't care if George Washington himself lead this war, we'd still be in Iraq right now. It takes a lot longer to build than to destroy. High tailing it and running would be irresponsible and foolish, and I would adamantely oppose anyone who proposed doing so.
As for whether we should have gone into this war, I say this. You and I could debate the reasons for war until the cows come home. It wouldn't change the fact that we did a good thing for the people of a nation the size of California. The problem is, a good thing only half completed is no longer a good thing. If we lack the resolve to finish what we started, then yeah, this war was bad. I personally refuse to have that on my head, and that's why I support doing whatever we need to do to get that nation back on its feet.
Thanks for stopping by and commenting. I've enjoyed the interaction. Your thoughts are very conscientous and well spoken. We just don't fully see eye to eye on this.
Thanks for the kind words. The reason I mentioned what I did was because I saw your obvious allegiance. I did not think someone who is completely in favor of one party would really be able to argue or debate without bias.
I am truly a third-party. I have no allegiance to Dems or Republicans. I just don't like the situation we have got oursevles into. I also don't like the bravado being shown in the fact that we went in there, and 'liberated' a nation, which did not ask us to be liberated. Can you imagine what happens if Russia goes and liberates Chechnya, North Korea liberates entire South East Asia, India liberates Pakistan, etc.? These are all possibilities if people who run those countries really want to do so. Yes, they will put their political career on the line, but at least they will do what the 'Leader of the World' did.
Liberate.
No, I don't think we should have gone to Iraq. Pre-empting a terrorist attack is something more dangerous than the world has made it seem. Why do you think there is so much Anti-Americanism today? Who is left in 'The Coalition'? Even Costa Rica *asked* to be taken off the list. Even though they were not supplying *any* armed forces. Taken off? People want to disassociate with America. The Supreme Leader. The Super Power. The Center of the Universe.
We are not only losing credibility in the world, but we are making more and more enemies as those bloody pictures from Iraq get flashed on millions of TV screens around the world. Not sure what is the best recourse today, but at the least, the President should admit his mistake and have his 'trusted' advisors resign.
And he should himself make sure he apologizes not only to the families of the soldiers who died, but all the innocents in Iraq who are dying constantly.
The President should be punished for what he has done. By getting voted out of power.
Post a Comment