Ten days ago, Congressman Charles Rangel (D-NY) made a splash when he suggested that the United States reinstate the draft. He argued that having a draft - and thus, more of a shared sacrifice among all Americans - would make politicians like President Bush and outgoing Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld more responsive to the people and more likely to avoid unecessary conflicts. Really, what Rangel is saying is that Bush would have been less likely to start a war in Iraq if he felt the political consequences of doing so would have hurt him more.
While I can see what Rangel is trying to do -- and it might work once to stop a president from going to war -- I don't think Bush & Co. would have hesitated if they had a draft. Everything in their history and their performance in office suggests that they'd see more soldiers as more resources. If there was a draft in place, it is possible they would have waited until after the 2004 election to go into Iraq, but it seems they still would have done it. Moreover, with a larger force, they may have attacked other countries too, as the hawks in the administration have suggested over the years, implying that a military solution was what was needed in Iran and Syria, among other nations.
Having a draft didn't stop the Johnson and Nixon administrations from continuing to escalate in Vietnam. Why should we believe this president would be more responsible with more lives?
Lastly, there is objection to the draft in principle. A truly free society doesn't conscript its people into service. We should honor those who choose to serve, and we should see to it that they are treated fairly and responsibly, and not thrust into harm's way unnecessarily.
So while we thank Mr. Rangel for the effort to hold the Bush administration politically accountable, we reject the idea of playing Russian roulette with our brothers and sisters and sons and daughters. It's a dangerous game Mr. Rangel is playing.
While I can see what Rangel is trying to do -- and it might work once to stop a president from going to war -- I don't think Bush & Co. would have hesitated if they had a draft. Everything in their history and their performance in office suggests that they'd see more soldiers as more resources. If there was a draft in place, it is possible they would have waited until after the 2004 election to go into Iraq, but it seems they still would have done it. Moreover, with a larger force, they may have attacked other countries too, as the hawks in the administration have suggested over the years, implying that a military solution was what was needed in Iran and Syria, among other nations.
Having a draft didn't stop the Johnson and Nixon administrations from continuing to escalate in Vietnam. Why should we believe this president would be more responsible with more lives?
Lastly, there is objection to the draft in principle. A truly free society doesn't conscript its people into service. We should honor those who choose to serve, and we should see to it that they are treated fairly and responsibly, and not thrust into harm's way unnecessarily.
So while we thank Mr. Rangel for the effort to hold the Bush administration politically accountable, we reject the idea of playing Russian roulette with our brothers and sisters and sons and daughters. It's a dangerous game Mr. Rangel is playing.
More info: Pelosi Says 'No' To Draft Legislation
