October 11, 2004
This just won't go away...
Congressman Charles Rangel (Dem., New York) shows once again that he won't let logic get in the way of his support for military conscription (scroll down to see previous posts here). He states in a letter to the editor of the WSJ:
Offering economic incentives to prospective recruits appeals only to people who need the money and opportunity. It's not Rangel's class war, it's the Bush Administration that has made no direct appeal to patriotism and has relied only on economic incentives.
No American who supports the Iraq war should be against the draft. If anyone really believes that Saddam Hussein was such a threat -- notwithstanding that the president now admits that there was no connection with 9/11 and that the Duelfer report shows that Saddam's weapons capability was decreasing before the U.S. invaded -- then they must deal with the question of how to find the troops.
Can I assume then that Rangel would support pay freezes for all policemen/women? Under his reasoning we should appeal to their patriotism instead of resorting to economic incentives.
If the LAPD had problems finding new recruits it would be a good sign that the pay may be too low to compete with the private sector and hence needs to be increased. Why should the military be any different? If we still have trouble recruiting for the armed forces despite high monetary incentives, that might be the best signal that we are in a war that does not have much to do with our national security.
And yes, the validity of the war should be judged on whether or not Iraq was an immediate threat to our national security. But to make the leap then that anyone supporting the war should also support the draft is beyond me.
What this comes down to is that Rangel believes your life is not your own but is instead, ultimately, the property of the government. It is here that our disagreement lies.
UPDATE: Don Boudreaux has an excellent post on the same subject. Not only did he tie in some issues regarding choice which fit perfectly with my last post on Adam Smith, he also has a much better title: "Wrangling with Logic"
If poor Americans live as civilians in such grim circumstances that voluntarily accepting employment in the military is the preferred option for many of them, in what way is the all-volunteer force harming these people? To conclude that the all-volunteer force inflicts a net harm on its rank-and-file employees (namely, soldiers) requires resort to some presumption that each of these people is generally unable to judge for himself what is in his best interest.
Posted by Peter Mork at 8:42 AM | Comments | TrackBack
October 5, 2004
Will the Draft be Back Back? Part II
In response to my earlier post apparently the answer is a resounding "No" as the House voted 402-2 against a draft bill put on the floor by Congressman Charles Rangel. The only two votes for the bill came from Democrats John Murtha and Pete Stark who supported the bill despite a the urging of the aforementioned author. The AP quotes Rangel explaining his vote:
"I would not advise anybody that's running for election as a Democrat to vote for this," said Rangel, who contended Republicans abused parliamentary standards to rush a vote to the floor without hearings or discussion. "It's a prostitution of the legislative process," he said.
Since the bill takes about 1 minute to read and its intent is crystal clear I don't know what "hearings or discussion" were necessary. Hence, I translate this as: "Democrats, don't vote for my bill or you will pay for it at the polls."
Even though the elections can bring out the worst in politics, examples like this make you wish you could hold politicians accountable once a month instead of once every two, four or six years.
Posted by Peter Mork at 5:17 PM | Comments | TrackBack
September 29, 2004
Will the Draft be Back?
Is a resurrection of the military draft in the works? According to some that might depend on who wins the presidency on November 2nd.
When John Kerry was asked if he believed Bush would reinstate the draft at a campaign rally, he stated:
"If George Bush were to be re-elected, given the way he has gone about this war and given his avoidance of responsibility in North Korea and Iran and other places, is it possible? I can't tell you."
Howard Dean was a little more blunt a few weeks ago:
"I think that George Bush is certainly going to have a draft if he goes into a second term," he told students at Brown University yesterday. "And any young person who doesn't want to go to Iraq might think twice about voting for him."
If Kerry and Dean are serious about putting an end to any chance that the U.S. returns to a military draft, they might want to look to legislation currently sitting in Congress authored by two politicians in their own party.
Sen. Hollings (D-SC) has sponsored the The Universal National Service Act of 2003 in the Senate while Rep. Charles Rangel (D-NY) has put the same bill onto the floor of the House. Granted, the bills are going nowhere and were described as “collecting dust” in the WSJ. Still, it would be nice for a Kerry/Dean combo to use some political weight to get these bills removed from the floor entirely.
On the Republican front, in addition to denying that his administration has any plans to bring back the draft, President Bush should condemn recent comments by Senator Hagel of the GOP along with the bill mentioned above.
Fortunately, no matter who is elected this November, a return to military conscription is pretty far fetched. The tyranny of the status quo is currently on the side a volunteer army and for that reason alone the current debate over conscription seems more like an act of scoring political points than anything else.
Posted by Peter Mork at 4:51 PM | Comments | TrackBack
April 21, 2004
Another Call for the Draft
Senator Hagel (R-NE) has renewed calls for a draft. According to opinionjournal.com not only is the Senator backing a return to military conscription but so is Charles Rangel for the following reason:
"Charles Rangel, the draft's chief proponent, argues conscription would be good because it would make it politically harder to take the nation to war--which would diminish America's national security by making it more dependent on domestic politics."
Here's a better idea. If we really want to make it harder to take the nation to war why don't we cut off the right arms of all males between the age of 18 and 26. That would make it nearly impossible to field a formitable force.
Of course this would be barbaric. It is precicely so sickening because it's such a gross violation of these young mens' right to their own lives. What then is a draft but the same... only possibly to a lesser extent.