HR 5741 A bill that won't make it off the ground.

[Highlord Laan]

Which is probably a good thing

I'm only a bit torn here. I'm completely against mandatory Military or Civilian state service, but on the other hand, I can see why the idea might have some merit. Not nearly enough to offset the massive detriments, but there's at least some method to the madness.

No way in hell it's getting passed though. Hell, the Army alone would throw up it's hands and go home if it suddenly got flooded with hordes of conscripts. Civilian services only slightly less so.

Making those services more open to employment and more well known would help far more than telling people they have to do it.

ADDITION: This just crossed my mind, so I'll ask it here. I know that women aren't required to sign up for the Selective Service (the draft), but are they allowed to opt-in if they wish to?

[Sinanju]

I have no idea where the US military is supposed to come up with the money for this, let alone work for all those people.

You're right, I don't really see this going anywhere. I would not be the least bit surprised if this were a stunt aimed at boosting Rangel's chances in the upcoming election.

[General Zod]

Rangel's been trying to unsuccessfully get the draft reinstated for decades. Honestly this is about as newsworthy as "old man yells at clouds".

[Sea Skimmer]

That it is. I'd be pretty confident someone has posted at least once, and several years multiple times on his attempts every single year SDN has existed too. Rangel assumed office in 1971, the last draft took place December 1972. Rangel has never stopped trying to get it back.

[Pelranius]

Why does Rangel have this ridiculous hard on for the Draft anyways? There's no way we could really pay for having that many soldiers and maintaining the military we have now.

[Knife]

Why does Rangel have this ridiculous hard on for the Draft anyways? There's no way we could really pay for having that many soldiers and maintaining the military we have now.

IIRC, he wants to bring the point across that the lower class tends to be the military people the US sends to war and a 'draft' system would equalize that so rich people would have to send their kids to war too; thus making war a bit harder to do. I'm pretty sure that's his stance on it, I could be wrong though, he's been doing it a long time and I'm sure it's changed some over 3 decades.

[Mr Bean]

Why does Rangel have this ridiculous hard on for the Draft anyways? There's no way we could really pay for having that many soldiers and maintaining the military we have now.

IIRC, he wants to bring the point across that the lower class tends to be the military people the US sends to war and a 'draft' system would equalize that so rich people would have to send their kids to war too; thus making war a bit harder to do. I'm pretty sure that's his stance on it, I could be wrong though, he's been doing it a long time and I'm sure it's changed some over 3 decades.

That's still his stance. He is of the firm belief that wars become easier to support if there is zero chance you yourself will be snatched up, given an rifle and a post to stand. Being a Korea Vet himself who saw some serious shit I can understand this.

To quote Wiki

Rangel has been long been opposed to the all-volunteer army and repeatedly called for the government to bring back the draft (military conscription).[35] In 2003, Rangel said that, "the poor, black and brown shouldn’t be the only Americans fighting and dying in Iraq", and that "Fairness dictates that the sons and daughters of the white middle and upper classes share the burden of war".[63] Speaking in 2006, Rangel stated, "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."[64]

In some part I support him. I'd love to keep a draft law on the books. There's no reason to not have one. Would I have drafted people before we went into A-Stan? Hell no.. But Iraq? Heck yes we could have used the manpower, stateside if nothing else to free up extra soldiers for Iraq. There may come a day when we need to draft soldiers into the Army. And I'd rather we skip a step and get the law on the books now even if no President touches the draft for the next fifty years.

[Aaron]

When the US had the draft before, didn't rich parents just get their kids cushy stateside postings if they wanted? Bush in the ANG, etc?

[Zixinus]

It's a nice idea, I have to admit on the sound of it, but I don't think that it can really work. Rich people will do what they always do and pull strings to get their kids in nice, cushy positions and the poor will get sent to the meat grinder (if not just the most awful positions imaginable).
Plus, drafted soldiers will more likely fight poorer than professional soldiers (who WANTED to fight).

Something other than military service might be worthwhile to consider, I think, but that's just daydreaming.

[PeZook]

You need a strong tradition to pull off something like Rangel wants. For example, members of the British royal family are expected to serve and fight if there's a war (in practice, of course, no sane commander will send a prince into the front if he values his career), but only thanks to a very, very strong tradition.

Take it away, and the rich and the influential will get their children into one of the many, many, MANY non-combat positions. Let that dirty immigrant Juarez get shot by insurgents, my Tommy will fly a Predator from his base in the States, thankyouverymuch, senator, here's some more money for your campaign.

[Alyrium Denryle]

This is objectionable to me for several reasons:

I will be blunt. I have Zero love for the US. I will never fight "for my country", as I have no pride in it and do not feel it or its national interests are worthy of my life, health, sanity, or innocence from the commission of a crime of war. It is my full intention to leave if I have the opportunity to pursue an academic post in Europe or Canada. I may have an attachment to certain members of its population that may induce me to fight if said subsection of the population is threatened, and a sufficiently worthy cause (such as taking down NeoHitler) may induce the same. However I bear this country-this country that keeps me under the boot of second class citizenship-no pledge to defend it with my body and life. I view my obligation to society not in terms of nations but in terms of people. I owe people obligation. I do not owe a flag or territory obligation.

It is also wasteful. There are individuals who are more valuable to society in general alive than dead or suffering in an urban combat zone somewhere (dying in a muddy trench somewhere is more poetic to say, but this is not WW1). Scientists, engineers, architects, teachers etc. Those who will build the future after the smoke of war has cleared. These people will be killed at the same rate as those who, frankly, contribute less. It is a miss-allocation of resources.

Someone such as me, who does not want to be there, will not fight as hard as someone who wants to (I am nearly a pacifist). The training (read: Brainwashing) techniques the military relies on to train its members rely on exploiting the cognitive dissonance created by a person hating the training regime but having made a choice to be there ("Be a man, finish what you start!". "I did not chose to be here asshole. I started nothing") Without a military service tradition like what exists in say Switzerland, these training methods will be less effective. Morale in conscript units will be lower, as will overall capability. This will make conscript units less effective than professional units. The two year enlistment term is also short enough that given the difficulty of training these individuals to be effective, the cost overshadows any military benefit obtained.

Forcing someone into a war zone against their will, unless the civilization itself is threatened, is also the equivalent of state sanctioned slavery and murder. Tearing someone away from their homes, families, and chosen occupations is a violation of someones "right" to self determination. It is one thing if they choose the military as their occupation, but to force someone to fight and die for a state interest they may or may support and for a state they may or may support is evil. If a volunteer soldier has to fight in a war they disagree with, at least they accepted that when they volunteered to wear the uniform.

[Gil Hamilton]

When the US had the draft before, didn't rich parents just get their kids cushy stateside postings if they wanted? Bush in the ANG, etc?

If they had influence to get them by that point. Continual college deferment was the big one as was there suddenly a huge interest in young men becoming priests/rabbis (they were exempt from the draft). Interestingly, Nixon was the one who strongly campaigned to end the draft (and the war for that matter) in favor of the all-volunteer army, but what ended the draft was that it looked like the rules were going to change that would have opened up alot more (wealthy and upper middle class) people to the draft in 1973 and suddenly they had a real vested interest in opposing it. After all, if you little darling has as much chance as a poor black kid from rural Georgia of getting drafted, then the whole thing looks a whole lot less attractive.

[Rogue 9]

Rangel has been doing this for years on end; it's just his favorite political stunt. He never even votes for his own draft bills on the rare occasions when they come to the House floor. It isn't news.

[Knife]

This is objectionable to me for several reasons:

I will be blunt. I have Zero love for the US. I will never fight "for my country", as I have no pride in it and do not feel it or its national interests are worthy of my life, health, sanity, or innocence from the commission of a crime of war. It is my full intention to leave if I have the opportunity to pursue an academic post in Europe or Canada. I may have an attachment to certain members of its population that may induce me to fight if said subsection of the population is threatened, and a sufficiently worthy cause (such as taking down NeoHitler) may induce the same. However I bear this country-this country that keeps me under the boot of second class citizenship-no pledge to defend it with my body and life. I view my obligation to society not in terms of nations but in terms of people. I owe people obligation. I do not owe a flag or territory obligation.

It is also wasteful. There are individuals who are more valuable to society in general alive than dead or suffering in an urban combat zone somewhere (dying in a muddy trench somewhere is more poetic to say, but this is not WW1). Scientists, engineers, architects, teachers etc. Those who will build the future after the smoke of war has cleared. These people will be killed at the same rate as those who, frankly, contribute less. It is a miss-allocation of resources.

Someone such as me, who does not want to be there, will not fight as hard as someone who wants to (I am nearly a pacifist). The training (read: Brainwashing) techniques the military relies on to train its members rely on exploiting the cognitive dissonance created by a person hating the training regime but having made a choice to be there ("Be a man, finish what you start!". "I did not chose to be here asshole. I started nothing") Without a military service tradition like what exists in say Switzerland, these training methods will be less effective. Morale in conscript units will be lower, as will overall capability. This will make conscript units less effective than professional units. The two year enlistment term is also short enough that given the difficulty of training these individuals to be effective, the cost overshadows any military benefit obtained.

Forcing someone into a war zone against their will, unless the civilization itself is threatened, is also the equivalent of state sanctioned slavery and murder. Tearing someone away from their homes, families, and chosen occupations is a violation of someones "right" to self determination. It is one thing if they choose the military as their occupation, but to force someone to fight and die for a state interest they may or may support and for a state they may or may support is evil. If a volunteer soldier has to fight in a war they disagree with, at least they accepted that when they volunteered to wear the uniform.

While a bit over dramatic, I would agree with you. A huge conscripted army for over seas political bullshit will just get us into more trouble and waste lives. A huge drafted army to repel an enemy invasion of our soil? That would be what a draft should be for.

[Kanastrous]

This would look a lot more appealing to me if instead of fixating upon military type service it focused upon something along the lines of a CCC, and made that the primary place for universal service. Reading the text at the link it seems as though the focus is pretty much entirely on things that involve carrying or supporting the guys carrying rifles, when given the physical state of the nation I think we have a much more urgent need for guys carrying shovels...

...although of course everyone spending some of their time helping repair a road or build a bridge does not yield the same political results re: warfighting as would everyone being expected to carry a rifle.

Given the reliability with which children of the wealthy and connected were able to defer or dodge Vietnam-era service when their numbers came up, I wonder what makes Rangel think that his new flavor of draft won't yield precisely the same results, today.

[Knife]

This would look a lot more appealing to me if instead of fixating upon military type service it focused upon something along the lines of a CCC, and made that the primary place for universal service. Reading the text at the link it seems as though the focus is pretty much entirely on things that involve carrying or supporting the guys carrying rifles, when given the physical state of the nation I think we have a much more urgent need for guys carrying shovels...

...although of course everyone spending some of their time helping repair a road or build a bridge does not yield the same political results re: warfighting as would everyone being expected to carry a rifle.

Given the reliability with which children of the wealthy and connected were able to defer or dodge Vietnam-era service when their numbers came up, I wonder what makes Rangel think that his new flavor of draft won't yield precisely the same results, today.

Again agree; however, might as well go an extra step in these rough times and go WPA and pay them for work instead of volunteer work.

[Kanastrous]

Yeah, I was thinking WPA when typing CCC...

[Edward Yee]

These days... yeah, unless it's paid, not my thing (in terms of bringing in mandatory civilian national service)... haven't felt the volunteer spirit in years.

[Kanastrous]

Don't worry - since it's mandatory you wouldn't have to volunteer, for it!

[chitoryu12]

I don't think we would even have the resources needed to train and supply such a large army, nor is there a necessity to. We're not under risk of invasion and there's no powerful country threatening to start a massive conquest a la Hitler. There just hasn't been a real need to conscript soldiers since World War II.

[Edward Yee]

Don't worry - since it's mandatory you wouldn't have to volunteer, for it!

In terms of whether I'd support its inception.

[MKSheppard]

I will be blunt.

If the shit really does hit the fan big enough to warrant draft reintroduction; you would be grabbed up as you tried to leave the country and classified as 1-O/1-W; and ordered to perform alternative service; probably consisting of chopping down trees in national forests for firebreaks or being injected with various fun infectious diseases for SCIENCE at Fort Detrick.

In my case; if the draft was ever reinstated; I'd fight like hell to get the 1-Y classification reinstated (only available for service in case of war or national emergency due to medical conditions that are limiting, but not totally disabling) and expanded; so I end up driving HEMTTS through Hell/Heaven Portal Alpha as a relief driver with the rank of bare private.

It is also wasteful. There are individuals who are more valuable to society in general alive than dead or suffering in an urban combat zone somewhere (dying in a muddy trench somewhere is more poetic to say, but this is not WW1). Scientists, engineers, architects, teachers etc. Those who will build the future after the smoke of war has cleared. These people will be killed at the same rate as those who, frankly, contribute less. It is a miss-allocation of resources.

Actually, what would happen is that they'd be either classified 2-B (Registrant deferred because of their holding a reserved occupation); or given an instant promotion to First Lieutenant or Captain after completing a cursory OCS course -- then told to get to work on making a DEATH RAY for the military and given a lab (this is why they get a promotion to O-2 or O-3; so they can command that lab).

See; this has been part of draft systems in the civilized world ever since the disastrous experience of many countries in the First World War, where in the name of egalitarianism, a lot of really smart scientists, engineers, and skilled machinists joined up in August of 1914; and then...died in the mud of the Western Front; causing a shortage of skilled workers later on in the war.

Someone such as me, who does not want to be there, will not fight as hard as someone who wants to (I am nearly a pacifist).

Even if you end up in a combat unit, who said anything about fighting?

The two year enlistment term is also short enough that given the difficulty of training these individuals to be effective, the cost overshadows any military benefit obtained.

And you've hit upon the reason why everyone has/is in process of closing down the use of drafts to staff peacetime armed forces -- with just two years; by the time the men know enough to be effective at their jobs, their draft term is up in a few months.

Some of them will enlist again as regulars; but this is a minority. So you have to count on having a mass of 'average' troops who are just starting to become effective -- they're experienced enough to execute simple military evolutions, like defending a fixed point; but not enough to execute a very demanding military evolution, like attacking a strongly defended point -- at least not without taking excessive casualties.

[MKSheppard]

This would look a lot more appealing to me if instead of fixating upon military type service it focused upon something along the lines of a CCC, and made that the primary place for universal service.

It already exists, people.

It's called the Selective Service Alternative Service Program; although it very much is a bare "on paper" thing that is outlined as follows:

Code: Select all

Many types of jobs are available, however the job must be deemed to make a meaningful contribution to the maintenance of the national health, safety, and interest. Examples of Alternative Service are jobs in: 

conservation 

caring for the very young or very old 

education 

health care 

Length of service in the program will equal the amount of time a man would have served in the military, usually 24 months. 

[RThurmont]

Isn't Rangel presently in hot water over some rather severe scandal?

The last time I remember him trying this, in 2004 if I recall correctly, he did indeed not vote for the measure when it came to the floor (although IIRC someone else did).

My own, somewhat controversial view, is that conscription is a human rights violation, tantamount to slavery, and should be prohibited via a constitutional amendment (and additionally, the US should, in cooperation with international partners, apply trade sanctions on countries such as Switzerland that have active conscription programs; alas, that's not going to happen).

[General Zod]

Isn't Rangel presently in hot water over some rather severe scandal?

The last time I remember him trying this, in 2004 if I recall correctly, he did indeed not vote for the measure when it came to the floor (although IIRC someone else did).

My own, somewhat controversial view, is that conscription is a human rights violation, tantamount to slavery, and should be prohibited via a constitutional amendment (and additionally, the US should, in cooperation with international partners, apply trade sanctions on countries such as Switzerland that have active conscription programs; alas, that's not going to happen).

Given that a significant number of our allies have active conscription, trade sanctions would effectively be economic suicide.