Home > Commentary
Congress should not reinstate the Draft
Editorial
by Emerald Editorial Board |
PUBLISHED ON 11/21/06 IN Commentary
Already, some preposterous ideas are emanating from leaders-to-be in the new Democratic congress.
The incoming chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, Rep. Charles Rangel, D - N.Y., stated last week that he plans to introduce legislation early next year calling for a reinstatement of a U.S. military draft. Rangel, who has unsuccessfully sponsored conscription legislation in the past, claims that mandatory service for citizens ages 18 to 42 will act as a multifaceted solution to our current military woes. According to his statements on CBS' "Face the Nation," he believes that a draft would not only remedy our lack of manpower in overseas conflicts, but also would act as a deterrent for lawmakers in their future decisions to engage in military conflicts. Rangel was an outspoken critic of the 2003 Iraq invasion, but advocated conscription once Congress passed the resolution.
Repeated polls have demonstrated that seven out of 10 Americans oppose the reinstatement of a draft. As voting members of our democratic society, we strongly agree with that majority. The fact that entering our armed forces is voluntary means that their enlistment numbers are an accurate reflection of popular support for military engagements. A lack of voluntary participation in the military is a direct result of a lack of support for the war within our country. If the American people are actually ideologically behind a war, they will sign up to fight.
Furthermore, Rangel's suggestion that mandatory service would force lawmakers to more intensely consider the implications of their decisions regarding military conflicts is incredibly irresponsible. Rangel is advocating the use of American lives as political motivation for lawmakers to oppose future military action. By putting them on the line prior to action, Rangel believes that Congress will make better choices than those that resulted in the Iraq resolution of 2003. He claims that if the families and children of members of Congress are more directly affected by the consequences of war, they will vote more responsibly.
We should not need a draft to make lawmakers thoroughly consider whether the nation should go to war. As a result of the bad intelligence and somewhat shady reasoning that drew America into Operation Iraqi Freedom, Congress should be even more inclined to deliberate any justifications given for war, even above and beyond what the public expects. Instating a draft would be an extremely reckless way to add weight to Congress' responsibility of making well-reasoned choices.
As the majority of the nation has for decades, we fervently disagree with the reinstatement of a draft. While it is unlikely that legislation of this nature will ever pass in Congress, it is important for us and all citizens to reiterate our support for voluntary service.
The incoming chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, Rep. Charles Rangel, D - N.Y., stated last week that he plans to introduce legislation early next year calling for a reinstatement of a U.S. military draft. Rangel, who has unsuccessfully sponsored conscription legislation in the past, claims that mandatory service for citizens ages 18 to 42 will act as a multifaceted solution to our current military woes. According to his statements on CBS' "Face the Nation," he believes that a draft would not only remedy our lack of manpower in overseas conflicts, but also would act as a deterrent for lawmakers in their future decisions to engage in military conflicts. Rangel was an outspoken critic of the 2003 Iraq invasion, but advocated conscription once Congress passed the resolution.
Repeated polls have demonstrated that seven out of 10 Americans oppose the reinstatement of a draft. As voting members of our democratic society, we strongly agree with that majority. The fact that entering our armed forces is voluntary means that their enlistment numbers are an accurate reflection of popular support for military engagements. A lack of voluntary participation in the military is a direct result of a lack of support for the war within our country. If the American people are actually ideologically behind a war, they will sign up to fight.
Furthermore, Rangel's suggestion that mandatory service would force lawmakers to more intensely consider the implications of their decisions regarding military conflicts is incredibly irresponsible. Rangel is advocating the use of American lives as political motivation for lawmakers to oppose future military action. By putting them on the line prior to action, Rangel believes that Congress will make better choices than those that resulted in the Iraq resolution of 2003. He claims that if the families and children of members of Congress are more directly affected by the consequences of war, they will vote more responsibly.
We should not need a draft to make lawmakers thoroughly consider whether the nation should go to war. As a result of the bad intelligence and somewhat shady reasoning that drew America into Operation Iraqi Freedom, Congress should be even more inclined to deliberate any justifications given for war, even above and beyond what the public expects. Instating a draft would be an extremely reckless way to add weight to Congress' responsibility of making well-reasoned choices.
As the majority of the nation has for decades, we fervently disagree with the reinstatement of a draft. While it is unlikely that legislation of this nature will ever pass in Congress, it is important for us and all citizens to reiterate our support for voluntary service.
Viewing Comments 1 - 2 of 2
Dorothy
dorothy b.
posted 11/21/06 @ 4:31 AM PST
Having the Draft would be better;research says,when there is a Draft,the govt.and congress are much less likely to put us into war,and less likely to put our troops into it. (Continued…)
Joseph Gebreyesus
posted 12/12/06 @ 4:09 PM PST
I see that this draft is soley being used as a way for the government to see the reaction from the people so that they can get a real look at whether or not the people actually back the war the govt. (Continued…)
Post a Comment