RANGEL'S PERVERSE PLOY
NEW YORK POST
Editorial
November 21, 2006
Democratic congressional leaders yesterday wasted no time washing their hands of Rep. Charles Rangel's latest effort to undercut the War on Terror by casting young Americans who have answered their country's call as victims.
That is to say, there will be no military draft anytime soon.
"I don't favor it," said Sen. Carl Levin, incoming chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee.
House Speaker-designate Nancy Pelosi and incoming Majority Leader Steny Hoyer both said an end to the all-volunteer military is not on their agenda.
Rangel pushed the idea two years ago, and the House rejected it 402-2 - with Rangel himself voting against it.
Back then, he was pushing the notion that only poor kids and minorities enlisted in the armed forces - that is, only society's victims need apply - a notion that has been thoroughly discredited.
Now he sees a draft as an anti-war tool.
"There's no question in my mind that this president and this administration would never have invaded Iraq . . . if indeed we had a draft and members of Congress and the administration thought that their kids from their communities would be placed in harm's way."
Which is nonsense on stilts.
Give Rangel his due: Serving in Korea, he earned a Bronze Star and a Purple Heart. Even so, he's intent on undermining the nation's confidence in its armed forces.
He continues to claim that the all-volunteer army means that the risks of military service are unduly shouldered by minorities, the uneducated and the poor.
In fact, just the opposite is true - as it was under the draft.
Recruits in the all-volunteer army are, on average, more intelligent and better educated than their civilian peers. Whites comprise as much of the military as they do the civilian population. And there are far more recruits from wealthier communities than from poor ones.
Nor would restoring the draft solve current troop-shortage problems.
America now has a high-tech military. Recruits need months - sometimes years - of specialized training before being deployed to combat units. That's why enlistments are usually for four years.
There's simply not enough time to train draftees - assuming they pass minimum intelligence and education requirements to begin with - and train them within the standard 10-to-24 months of draft service and still allow enough time for combat deployments.
Little wonder that the Pentagon adamantly opposes a draft.
The all-volunteer army, as former Secretary of State (and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman) Colin Powell put it, is "the best we've ever had" - not just in its weaponry, but in the skills, abilities and training of its soldiers.
Rangel's arguments, even if they were sincere, don't hold up.
But there is a bright side to all this: The more Rangel obsesses on the draft, the less time he'll have for all the tax hikes he's planning as chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee.
Count your blessings.
nypost.com |
