<p>“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,” Rangel said.</p>
<p>I am not sure what he is saying. Some members of Congress have children in Afghanistan or Iraq. And where do the current members of the volunteer military come from if not “from their communities”? Are they foreign mercenaries? Unless we have a universal draft, elites will always find ways to game the system to avoid service.</p>
<p>Like anyone listens to Charlie, even among the democrats.</p>
<p>Keep in mind it’s not the ultraleft folks like Rangel and Dingell that brought the dems back to power. Let’s just home the dem leadership keeps such folks in checl, lest the dems remind people over the next two years why they were voted out of office 14 years ago.</p>
<p>I do not think they should draft females. If there wasa draft that first took males, the army would be so full of soldiers it would not know what to do with themsevles. There would be no need to dip into the female population.</p>
<p>The “draft” that Mr. Rangel is looking to propose is not a realistic one – he is merely using it as a method of criticizing the Bush administration on its Iraq policy. Pumping additional troops obviously won’t solve the problem. This bill is symbolic, at best.</p>
<p>“And where do the current members of the volunteer military come from if not “from their communities”?”</p>
<p>Not sure where Congressmen come from, but rural areas have had a lot more casualties in Iraq per capita than urban areas. I think prior to the mid-term elections, only 2 of the 535 members of Congress had children in Iraq, and maybe 7 had children in the military, period.</p>
<p>I actually like Rangel’s logic. If the administration is going to determine that Iraq is the most pressing national security priority since WWII, then Bush should be happy throw the full weight of our country behind it, including a draft to staff the massive military presence that would be required for a full-scale occupation. One of the things missing from the who discussion of Iraq is the lost opportunity cost…or, in fact, discussing the cost at all.</p>
<p>Rangel is trying to make a connection between the “benefits” of a continued war in Iraq with the costs.</p>
<p>Every career military person I have ever heard offer opinion on this issue is 100% opposed to a draft; to a person they say that they do not want to be fighting next to someone in theator who did not actively chose to be there; they only want to serve with peers who are 100% committed, and who truly want to serve.</p>
<p>Having said that, if there were a draft, I think it’s terrific to include females. Today’s military calls for skill sets, core competencies and education backgrounds including technology, languages, psychology, etc. - there are valuable assets that both sexes can bring to the table. </p>
<p>I do NOT think people over the age of 25 or so should be drafted - 42 is ridiculous, on the basis that I doubt physical fitness levels in the majority of Americans over a certain age can pass minimal standards. Even if a person has an indoor sort of “desk job”, being in top physical condition enhances mental performance considerably, and I just don’t see the capabilities being present in a majority of the population over 25 or so (too much television, internet addiction, poor diet, alcohol, etc.).</p>
<p>That’s fine. Then, we simply need to have a public discussion that includes the COST of adding 100,000 more troops to the all-volunteer military when McCain suggests it. It’s easy to make suggestions when there is no cost attached.</p>
<p>The purpose of the draft is not to discipline wayward politicians or administration. Those who feel Bush has frivolously placed our young people in harm’s way to pursue a personal vendetta against Saddam should feel no differently about Rangel who proposes to do the same thing for the frivolous purpose of teaching the administration a lesson.</p>
<p>I think that the point is that if we, as a nation, are not ready to be fully committed to war - including making sacrifices across the board - maybe we shouldn’t do it at all. As Robert E. Lee said: “It is well that war is so terrible; else we would grow too fond of it.” It could be that the best lesson we learn from Iraq is to not take attacking another country as lightly as the Bush Administration appears to have done. If we had to institute a draft before going to war, we’d only do it when we were prepared to commit to the task.</p>
<p>Golani, I do agree that women should not be combat soldiers, for the very basic reason that I do not believe female biology is competent to the task. Simply put, women (obviously) cannot build muscle and other physical capabilities to the degree necessary to engage in armed combat, compared to the potential physical capabilities of men. </p>
<p>(I do of course believe in equality for women, but there’s no point in being stupid about it and denying basic facts of biology.)</p>
<p>Having said that, today’s military is far, far more than just front line soldiering. Modern weaponry is highly technological; and in intelligence and special forces there are special needs for language proficiency, communications, psychology, engineering, and a long list of other things I cannot think of offhand. </p>
<p>More importantly, military service can also be a terrific career opportunity, and a chance to fast track to new skills and gain unique experiences that transfer easily to the private sector. Personally, I wouldn’t like to see women denied these opportunities.</p>
<p>agreed. Women should be allowed in the army. The point I was making was that if there is a draft with compulsary service for a year or even 2, it wouldnt be a necessity for women to be drafted, but I do not object to them being drafted.</p>
<p>However, I completely agree with you women are plain weaker and they should not be allowed in combat units, and in addtion you do not want soldiers developing romances, impregnating other soldiers, it would ruin unit cohesion, there could be male protectionism, and poor judgment on the battle field because of women combat soldiers.</p>