Posted by
GoodtimeBob on Wednesday, November 22, 2006 5:53:42 AM
When I saw the headline proposing a new draft I at first thought someone was making a sincere effort to deal with the military's manpower issues. Then I saw that the proposal was brought forth by Rep. Charlie Rangel D-NY. Alarm bells went off. This is not a man noted for his support of the military, the war on terrorism or national security. Further research showed that he had been proposing such legislation every year since Iraq was liberated. By his own admission this in not an attempt to help the military but rather further politicize the war. He feels that a draft will cause further protests against the war. In other words, he wants to reinstate the dark days of Vietnam where our troops fought a fanatic enemy only to come home to scorn. Every piece of legislation he introduced was promptly voted down. But now, with the incoming House and Senate leadership one has to wonder what kind of legislation will be rammed through.
Do we need a draft? Not at this time. The all volunteer military works. Meeting recruitment goals isn't always easy but it keeps the forces supplied with recruits. Do we need a bigger military? Yes..at least in terms of ground troops so that we can reduce deployment times. This can be done by stepping up recruiting and if needed offering higher benefits. It is far more economical, both in terms of money and national cohesion, to keep the all volunteer force. Does anyone really believe that a draft instituted by the radical Democratics would be designed to enhance the military? Already, the proposal has mentioned a term of national service, where joining the military would be but one of several options. I can smell the rotten pork from here. Give the Democrats huge cadres of young people to indoctrinate and do there bidding and watch the programs designed to further their agenda proliferate. Does anyone really believe that deferrments are going to be rationally created? What about those draftees who do join the military. With a two year term and for many a less than ardent wish to serve, you will be creating an underclass of low skilled troops. While there are many simple jobs that need to be done, under the current system you still have a degree of unit cohesiveness and loyalty unlike anything of the draft years.
Is a universal term of national service a good idea? In my opinion yes. With only the strictest deferrments. But it should be administered by a non-partisian organization that emphasizes service to country. Esprit de corp needs to be built. Training should be the beginning of a lifetime of realization of the need to work for the greater good. Assignmenst need to be prioritized by need, not some Congressman's need for a pork project. I don't believe that the military should get soldiers this way. Civilian workers is another thing. But for uniformed personnel let us continue to rely on an all volunteer force.
The Selective Service system can be upgraded and modernized. We need to shorten the time needed to field troops in case of national emergency. We are able to handle the war against terrorism but let is never forget that we face a far greater danger in the future from China. But that is another blog.