The Hazards of Playing Gotchya

Friday, November 10, 2006

Over at The American Thinker is an article by Ray Robison that discusses one aspect of the Democrat takeover of Congress I hadn't given that much thought to: The desire on the part of some Democrats to reinstitute the draft.

On January 8th of 2003, Congressman Charles Rangel [D-NY] began an extensive campaign to bring back the military draft. He repeatedly submitted legislative bills to begin a military draft and compel all American men and women up to the age of forty-two to serve two years of military service. Under the Republican-controlled Congress, such bills went down to defeat.

One of the few notable supporters of the draft was Congressman John Murtha [D-PA]. Congressman Murtha reportedly is preparing to campaign to take over the highly influential position of House Majority Leader. Congressman Rangel is set to take over the House Ways and Means Committee. Two proponents of a military draft will most likely take over two key leadership positions in the new Democrat-contolled [sic] House. Surely they were not lying to America when they proposed a draft? They would not make such a serious proposal for a mere political cheap shot, would they?

...

Now that the Democrats are in control of the House and the Senate, a review of their previous policy decisions on the Iraq war will be an important indicator of where the new Democrat Congressional leadership will take the direction of the war. Despite many promises among Democratic incumbents and Democrats to disengage in Iraq, in June of 2006 Senate Democrats overwhelmingly rejected a bill to lay a time table for troop withdrawal from Iraq. [bold added]
To be fair, this article is not exactly staking out a pro-draft position and Robison does claim that the GOP was (and will probably remain) hostile to reinstituting the draft. Nevertheless, he never explains why the draft is bad on moral or even derivative practical grounds. (Moral: It violates individual rights . Practical: It would remove a check on poor foreign policy decisions, besides damaging the morale needed for our high-tech military.)

Instead, Robison is so intent on showing that the Democrats are hypocrites that he basically challenges them to bring back the draft! "[The Democrats] would not make such a serious proposal for a mere political cheap shot, would they?" And again: "[I]t remains to be seen whether the Democrats will bring to the table now what they called for under a Republican Congress." This leaves the door wide open now for the Democrats -- who , as enemies of personal freedom, would doubtless love to bring back the draft (and probably morph it into some form of nonmilitary national service) -- to do just that. And it will set them up to call the Republicans hypocrites if they oppose it!

This is an eloquent demonstration of the life-and-death stakes of principled political debate. The time is now for the Republicans (or heck, any Democrats who oppose the draft, if any are left) to remember what a principle -- specifically the sanctity of individual rights -- looks like.

The military draft should be opposed for very good reasons, the essential one being that the whole purpose of the state is to protect the right of its citizenry to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The draft is obviously a very hazardous form of slavery. And if our nation institutes it in the name of self-defense, is it really worth defending anymore? And would its advocates really deserve to be thought of as patriots?

Our nation is under threat from within, Mr. Robison. Daring the other party to make good on one of its threats is no way to mount a defense.

-- CAV

6 comments:

Nicholas Provenzo said...

I’m surprised just how much support for the draft exists when I speak to veterans; it speaks to the frightening rise of a secular religion that demands sacrifice to the state as a sign of virtue. Fortunately, it seems that the people we actually run the armed forces oppose the draft based on the knowledge of just how devastating its re-institution would be for the institution.

What is lacking is the larger understanding of rights and the government’s duty to its citizens (and not the other way around). If the Democrats are the party of the draft, it will be a hard fight to stop them, but it also will be a clear way to attack them as the enemies of personal freedom (and the military) that they are.

Gus Van Horn said...

If this fight occurs, it will serve as a measure of just how bad the GOP is. Cold comfort, but even if the news is bad, we will have learned something.

Vigilis said...

Let me remind that Democrat leadership is the party of the lawyers, as well as the draft.

Their desire to bring back the draft relates to the establishment of entirely new regulations since the draft was last used. I refer, of course, to the capacity of women serving in the military.

Nowadays, in order to draft 25,000 Marines or combat infantry troops, the net has to be cast (against our better wisdom) to include the majority gender, which unfortunately will not yield 25,000 combat infantry troops. It will yield about 12,675 women draftees (assuming required fitness) and about 12,375 male draftees (same assumption).

While the taxpayer would be required to process, train and pay both groups, the "universal draft" would be among the least efficient social engineering programs yet devised by the Democrats.

Leaving this fundamental flaw for a moment, the number of lawsuits generated by such a draft nowadays would also keep a cadre of lawyers employed (strike that) paid for several years.

As a taxpayer, I am not prepared to foot the incremental bill for such foolishness, are you?

Gus Van Horn said...

It's worse than that. Rangel wants to draft EVERYBODY for two years!

There is NO WAY our military could use this many people. (I guesstimate 7-8 million people at once: 300 million people times 1/40 for two years of an 80 year life expectancy.) This has bloated bureaucracy and social engineering written all over it.

Unscrupulous lawyers would hardly be the only parasites supported by such a program.

Anonymous said...

you may have noticed that I also said the president would certainly veto it and the dems do not have the numbers to overturn the veto. there is zero chance it would pass ultimately. and military leadership would fight it tooth and nail (as I would have when I was an officer). aint gonna happen, no how, no way. But thanks very much for your considered and thoughtful review. Keep up the great work.

-Ray Robison

Gus Van Horn said...

Roy,

Thank you for stopping by. I could see the Republicans finding their minority-party backbone again, but then again, this is the same "party of small government" that passed Bush's prescription drug benefit. I would have thought such a radical expansion of the welfare state similarly improbable not so long ago.

I would not underestimate the ability of the GOP to disappoint. Those of us who help influence opinion in our small ways should help our better politicians by supplying them with the intellectual ammunition they will obviously need over the next couple of years.

Gus