Congress Rangel (D-ishonest) has again submitted the bill to re-instate the draft. You know, the one he always votes "NO" on......
His premise is that if you support the war, you should support the draft. He doesn't support the war, but supports a draft, except that he doesn't...........what an idiot. Just vote to defund the war and be honest about it.
WASHINGTON - Congressman Charles Rangel on Thursday introduced H.R. 5741, a bill that would reinstate a compulsory military draft, or alternative national service, during times of war, for men and women, aged 18 to 42, who are citizens or permanent residents of the United States.
"What troubles me most about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan is the total indifference to the suffering and loss of life among our brave young soldiers on the battlefield," Congressman Rangel said. "The reason is that so few families have a stake in the war which is being fought by other people's children. (Rangel is lying. Total Indifference? This man is delusional and is using this perception as a way to justify his moral cowardice. He doesn't want to be seen de-funding the war, so he uses this premise.)
"The test for Congress, particularly for those members who support the war, is to require all who enjoy the benefits of our democracy to contribute to the defense of the country. All of America's children should share the risk of being placed in harm's way. (No CHILD shares the risk. If fact, there is NO risk of being placed in harm's way. Every ADULT CHOSE to enter the military. If no one chooses, then no one is at risk.)
"In other words, if you support the war, you should support a compulsory military draft," Congressman Rangel said.
The bill, which the Congressman first introduced in 2003 as the nation prepared for the invasion of Iraq, and offered again in 2004, 2006, and 2007, provides for:
• A national service obligation--either military or civilian--for every citizen and permanent resident, male and female, of the U.S., aged 18 to 42.
• Persons may inducted to perform military service only if a declaration of war is in effect, or if the President declares a national emergency necessitating the induction of persons to perform military service and immediately informs Congress of the reasons for the declaration. (Does Congress have to APPROVE or just be notified? No responsibility here...)
• Defines "national service" as either military or civilian service as defined by the President that promotes national or homeland security. (Defined by whom? Not a written criteria? The President gets to decide?)
• Give the President the authority to establish the numbers of persons to be selected for military service and the means of selection. (Currently, the quotas for enlistment are approved by Congress. If the President dictates manning levels, Congress would have no input on funding to meet that level. More abrogation of responsibility.)
• Requires those not selected for military service to perform their national service obligation in a civilian capacity for a period of two years. (Since it may take two years just to train a military member, this seems a little low.)
• Directs the President to prescribe the regulations necessary to carry out the act. (Congress abrogating responsibility again. Where does it say in the Constitution that the Executive prescribes regulations.)
• Deferments for education are only permitted through completion of high school, to a maximum age of 20. (Apparently he doesn't want to draft officers.)
• Deferments may be made for physical or mental disability, or under claims of conscientious objector. (Or, now, they can just NOT ENLIST. No need to be an objector.)
BRINGING THE TROOPS HOME
Rangel said that he was not challenging President Obama's handling of the war in Iraq or Afghanistan, conflicts with few options that the President had inherited from the previous Administration. (Unlike what he did to Bush under the SAME conflict.)
"I support the President's intentions to withdraw our troops, but I'd like to see it happen sooner. In my view, no additional tax dollars should be appropriated for any reason except to bring home our brave and exhausted young men and women. The loss of 5,500 lives and 38,000 wounded is enough." (Hey Rangel! That's YOUR job. DO IT! IF YOU OBJECT, PUT YOUR DEFUNDING WHERE YOUR MOUTH IS.)
A combined total of 160,000 Americans are currently deployed. More than 2 million men and women have served in the two conflicts, nearly half of them for more than one tour of duty. And because of a shortage of manpower, some of them have been deployed as many as six times. (Of course, manning levels are the responsibility of Congress.......)
"The 3.3 million military households, representing only one percent of American families, have become a virtual military class who are unfairly carrying the burden of war," Congressman Rangel said. "If there were a draft, there would be no shortage of troops to fill the ranks without repeatedly deploying the same exhausted troops over and over." (Of course there would be shortages. Does he think that this would magically create millions of soldiers overnight? Apparently he has no clue about the training of modern military members. An then we would have demoralized cannon fodder.)
So far, the numbers of casualties may not be as high, or as shocking, as those suffered in previous wars. But the physical and mental damage to individual soldiers is not only heartbreaking but is taking place at rates never before seen in modern warfare.
The reason is that advances in medical technology have allowed more wounded soldiers to survive the loss of limbs, and serious head and brain injuries. "The result is a practical epidemic of cases of post traumatic stress disorder, suicides, and family disruptions," Congressman Rangel said. (So what are you saying? Better to be dead on the battlefield? And in MANY earlier wars, military members were deployed FOR THE DURATION.)
Again in this war, troops recruited from large urban centers (HIS CODE WORDs FOR BLACKS) with high unemployment and from economically depressed small towns (Southerners? How about economically depressed large cities like Pittsburgh?) , are carrying the heaviest burden of service. Enlistment bonuses are as high as $40,000. Incentives for reenlistment range from $1,000 for the lowest-skilled privates to $27,000 for staff sergeants with special skills. Combined with the economic recession these incentives have produced record-breaking recruiting results this year. (These bonuses seem low. Spec warfare bonuses and Navy Nuke bonuses are higher than that. Of course, these recruits also enlisted, knowing full well, that we are at war. And they did the same thing during the good economic years. This year may be record-breaking, but quotas were filled then, also. Record breaking? With a war on? Amazing what happens when the press stop badmouthing the war every day)
"The question of whether we need a universal compulsory military draft will be important as long as this country is placing thousands of its young men and women in harm's way," Congressman Rangel said. (There's no question. The military has stated repeatedly and loudly that a draft would HARM military readiness.)
"We make decisions about war without worry over who fights them. Those who do the fighting have no choice; when the flag goes up, they salute and follow orders," Congressman Rangel said. (Of course they have a choice. EVERY SINGLE MILITARY MEMBER SERVING TODAY CHOSE TO BE THERE DURING A COMBAT TOUR. EVERY SINGLE ENLISTEE JOINED DURING WARTIME.)
Wellll.........he's lying again. He's using that same canard about poor people and urban (read: black) people being disproportionately represented in the military and at the front.
From the Heritage Foundation from 2007 : (I wish I had more recent info. I don't think its changed much.)
Household Income. Enlisted recruits in 2006 and 2007 came primarily from middle-class and upper-middle-class backgrounds. Low-income neighborhoods were underrepresented among enlisted troops, while middle-class and high-income neighborhoods were overrepresented.
His canard about poorly educated troops can also be seen to be false:
Education. Contrary to popular perceptions, America's enlisted troops are not poorly educated. Previous Heritage Foundation studies found that enlisted troops were significantly more likely to have a high school education than their peers. This is still the case. Only 1.4 percent of enlisted recruits in 2007 had not graduated from high school or completed a high school equivalency degree, compared to 20.8 percent of men ages 18 to 24. America's soldiers are less likely than civilians to be high school dropouts.
The military requires at least 90 percent of enlisted recruits to have high school diplomas. Most enlisted recruits do not have a college degree because they enlist before they would attend college. However, many recruits use the educational benefits offered by the military to attend college after they leave the armed forces.
More evidence of the quality of America's enlisted forces comes from the standardized Armed Forces Qualifying Test (AFQT) that the military administers to all recruits. Over two-thirds of enlisted recruits scored above the 50th percentile on the AFQT. The military tightly restricts how many recruits it accepts with scores below the 30th percentile, and only 2.3 percent of recruits in 2007 scored between the 21st and 30th percentiles (Category IVA; see Chart 3). The military does not accept any recruits in the bottom 20 percent. (My edit: Dumb soldiers DIE.)
As to his concern for all those enlistees from small towns, it seems that the military tradition is alive and well in the South, especially Texas, Louisiana, Arkansas, and Oklahoma. Its also strong in the Mountain West. The MidWest makes a respectable showing, while the Pacific Coast is somewhat underrepresented. But even the Left Coast beats out the North East, Rangel's people, for representation. Maybe we only need a draft in the North East.
For all of his alleged concern about the troops, its THOSE TROOPS that keep stating that they don't want draftees as reinforcements. Draftees would harm military readiness, and dull that sharp edge that we have now.
Even data from the 1990's disproves Rangel.
Two leading military sociologists, Charles Moskos of Northwestern and John Sibley Butler of the University of Texas, researched this carefully for their 1996 book "All We Can Be: Black Leadership and Racial Integration the Army Way."
In recent decades, blacks have tended to gravitate away from combat jobs. In arguing against Rangel's bill, the Department of Defense noted, "Blacks today account for 21 percent of the enlisted force, but make up only 15 percent of combat arms (e.g., infantry, armor, artillery).
"In contrast, blacks account for 36 percent of Functional Support and Administration and 27 percent of Medical and Dental career fields. "
Interestingly, the military today seems to attract pugnacious whites and pragmatic blacks. Analysts have suggested that more young white men see the infantry as a way, in the words of one, to "play Rambo" from age 18 to 22, then go to college using military tuition benefits. In contrast, blacks often view the military as either a long-term career in itself, or as a way to get practical training for a civilian white-collar career.
Are soldiers the products of particularly poor families? In general, the enlisted ranks come from neither the top nor the bottom of society, but from working and middle class backgrounds. Very few enlistees appear to be the scions of the wealthy. (Some officers are from rich families, however; but a larger proportion of officers are the sons and daughters of officers.)
White enlistees tend to come from households somewhat lower in income than the general white population: $33,500 per year versus $44,400 for the average white, according to 1999 Defense Department statistics. Strikingly, black enlistees come from households above the black national average: $32,000 vs. $27,900
In fact, on a number of measures, African-American enlistees tend to stand well above the black average and very close to, or above, the mean for white enlistees.