Congressional "Draft Picks"

It is something of old stale news in the blogosphere, but I thought I would comment on Representative Charles Rangel's motion to reinstate the draft. This motion is interesting as it in some ways acts as a microcosm on the debates and politics of the day.

First of all, as blogger-journalist Howard Kurtz notes, this motion and the speed with which other Democratic congressional leaders have distanced themselves from it is somewhat indicative of the larger lack of direction or unity among Democrats. The fact that any such motion would be soundly voted down by members of both parties also points to how much reinstating a military draft would be like voting on Social Security. Another interesting relfection on modern politics is how, from what I can gather, Rangel's draft motion is not really a serious idea anyway, but either some attempt at political showmanship or some vague poetic justice That Congressmen wouldn't vote for wars if their children had to serve, although a.) this did not stop them from approving World War II and Vietnam and b.) it's a bit of an open question how many Congressmen have draft-age children anyway, and ignores that draft or no draft being a Congressman's son or daughter means you're never going to a foxhole unless you want to.

That fellow Democrat Rahm Emanuel has countered with a plan for compulsory national service (whether in the military or some - mandatory?- volunteer duties) shows that this debate is more about some sense of "values" and might lead to a political compromise similar to Germany's conscription: one year of compulsory military service that can be earned in volunteer charity work. I met a German student once who fulfilled this requirement by working in a nursing home. Should I point out that Germany has a large problem even mounting peacekeeping operations? Such "national service" seems like a bigger waste of time and energy than just a straightforward military draft.

Kurtz's survery of internet opinion also shows that the draft is a concept now completely foreign to large portions of American society. Some decry it as two years of slavery, a writer from the National Review opposes it on the notion that the volunteer army does not need it. All, bloggers, journalists and politicians, overlook the fact that the United States technically does have a draft, called the Selective Service that is there to be mobilized after the full-time units, individual and unit reserves and National Guard have been mobilized. But, let's be honest, Selective Service is something of a joke at best, and will never seriously contribute to military command. Also, in theory, is the US military supposed to be manned and equipped to fight two medium conventional wars at once, but this also seems to be something of pie in the sky. So much for objectives, and the political will to meet those objectives without meddling in micromanaging the details.

Jim Webb, Senator-elect from Virginia, wrote an article on why reinstating the draft would be a good idea. It can be found freely viewable here, and I should point out it was written in 1980, before he was even Secretary of the Navy. If he still believes half of the things he writes here (such as women being unfit for combat duty, the silliness of a volunteer army's advertising and "seducing" of potential volunteers, the ease that volunteers can quit and the downright necessity for strengthening military discipline), then he cannot be too popular with Nancy Pelosi or Howard Dean. But nevertheless his views seem even more relevant today, and it is a hopeful thought that he could sway more people from his party. Perhaps the military does not need a draft, but Webb seems right that American society could use one.

I sincerely hope that we will have more political leaders like Webb and like McCain (who broke political protocol by stating things like they are - that troops levels need to be raised in Iraq before anything else, as requested by Gen. Abizaid among others). These Navy vet senators seem to have a better grasp on ideas and the relative importance of what needs to be done.