by That’s what Charles Rangel of New York wants to re-instate. He says:
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.
Who exactly does he think is fighting in Iraq now? Those folks live in somebody’s district, I can assure you!
As vile as the draft for Vietnam was (I hear, having been in single-digits at the time), I think Chuck is correct, in principle, that all Americans should have to put in some time serving the country.
Tangentially, I think it’s been demonstrated that the idea that being born and growing up in this country automatically means you love and appreciate our life here is false.
Without service and an understanding of what it means to be American the freedoms we enjoy (though fewer now, thanks to W) are assumed to be a right of entitlement by American youth. A year in the Coast Guard, the INS, or in a port authority would go a long way to maturing some of today’s ingraites.
That’s quite a different thing than serving in the armed forces, the Coast Guard example above not withstanding. I think Rangel is correct again when he says that the Prez & Congress would be more careful with draftees than with volunteers.
This isn’t because the pols care any more about run-of-the-mill kids. But there’s a difference between a volunteer being killed and someone who was conscripted suffering the same fate. The difference is the residual anger of the public and its effect on the ballot box. In other words, what happened in the 2006 election, only bigger.
Would I support a draft then? Hell no. To paraphrase my man George Orwell, you shouldn’t ought to trust the buggers. I don’t, not with my boys. Not this lot, at least.
