Post-Gazette Editorial – 12/5/06

This page was last updated on December 5, 2006.

Draft resisters: What no one wants is still worth debating; Editorial; Pittsburgh Post-Gazette; December 5, 2006.

Below is a detailed critique of the subject editorial.

“U.S. Rep. Charles Rangel, the New York Democrat who is soon to take over as chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, is not one to let his new duties interfere with a favorite legislative hobby horse, revival of the military draft.

“If there is one issue that unites the warring parties on Capitol Hill, it is this proposal, which the Republican leadership allowed to come to a vote in 2004. It was defeated by a vote of 402-2, with Mr. Rangel himself voting against it, accusing the GOP of political gamesmanship to crush the measure.”

[RWC] You won’t be surprised to learn the PG omitted context and a few facts.

Democrats thought it would improve their chances in 2004 if voters believed Republicans wanted to reinstate the draft. In an effort to make that outcome look like a real possibility, Mr. Rangel introduced H.R. 163 (Universal National Service Act of 2003) on January 7, 2003. Though Democrats did nothing to advance the bill, they used its mere existence to instill fear. Finally fed up, in October 2004 House Republicans called the Democrat bluff and brought the bill up for a vote.

Not only did Mr. Rangel vote against his own bill, he urged all Democrats to do likewise. That’s why the bill went down 402–2. The only two reps who voted for the bill? You guessed it, two Democrats, Reps. John Murtha of Pennsylvania and Pete Stark of California.

I got a kick out of Mr. Rangel “accusing the GOP of political gamesmanship.” Mr. Rangel and his friends introduce a draft bill, tell us what a great idea it is for about 21 months, and then vote against their own bill. And they call bringing the bill up for a vote to be “political gamesmanship.” What a hoot!

“The issue, as Mr. Rangel sees it, is real enough. The Iraq war is being fought by -- and is sorely taxing -- an under-strength U.S. Army. But he also contends that reinstating the draft, which has been on standby status since 1973, is the only way to distribute the responsibility for fighting wars across the socioeconomic spectrum.

“That contention is debatable; the Heritage Foundation recently released a report that said U.S. military recruits are more similar than dissimilar to the U.S. youth population and the differences consist of the average soldier being slightly better educated and coming from a slightly wealthier, more rural area.”

[RWC] The Heritage Foundation report is entitled “Who Are the Recruits? The Demographic Characteristics of U.S. Military Enlistment, 2003–2005.”

“A conscript army has been out of favor since the Vietnam War, when many young men avoided military service by prolonging their education, gaining deferments and leaving the burden to be borne by the less-favored strata of society, including many blacks and others unable to find a way out.

“But in World War II and later, the mix of draftees and volunteers in the Army did mirror society in many ways, with many college-educated young people contributing their knowledge.

“For more than three decades the all-volunteer Army has worked well too, although the Iraq quagmire -- to call it what it is -- has sorely tested that force. The strains are evident, and the sacrifices, including death and injury in combat, are, in the view of Mr. Rangel and others, unfairly distributed.”

[RWC] As noted, though, the data does not support “the view of Mr. Rangel and others.”

“Incoming House Speaker Nancy Pelosi archly reminded Mr. Rangel that he had important duties on the committee that he will head in the new Congress. Obviously, the country does not want a resumption of the draft, but Mr. Rangel believes that presidents, their advisers and members of Congress would be less apt to recommend wars if their own children had to fight.”

[RWC] This is a despicable proposition. What kind of person would let concerns about his own children (or friends or relatives) serving affect his decision regarding war or other military action? If a person would let those concerns affect his decision, that person does not deserve to be a leader of our country.

“That is why Mr. Rangel’s bill is worth at least a debate on Capitol Hill, even if it has no chance of passing.”