Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Rangel speaks -- about the draft

Y'all know how I like to go after Rep. Charles B. Rangel (D-N.Y.). He's made it so easy with all his ethics problems. Not once have I heard from him about any of the stinging blog posts I've written. But when I positively mentioned his annual introduction of legislation to reinstate the draft, the embattled dean of the New York congressional delegation felt compelled to write in. The piece was about an important yet overlooked speech Defense Secretary Robert Gates delivered at Duke University on Sept. 29 about the gap between those who serve and the nation they protect.

"[F]or most Americans the wars remain an abstraction. A distant and unpleasant series of news items that does not affect them personally," Gates said. "Even after 9/11, in the absence of a draft, for a growing number of Americans, service in the military, no matter how laudable, has become something for other people to do." And Rangel concurs in the letter to the editor he emailed to us.

Dear Editor:

Jonathan Capehart's report on Defense Secretary Robert Gates's speech at Duke University was a useful reminder of the "abstraction" that war has become to most Americans.

I still believe, as I did in 2003 when I first proposed reinstating the military draft, that decision-makers in the U.S. Congress, and elsewhere, would never have supported an invasion of Iraq at all if their own children had been subject to service in the invading force.

Today's warriors, increasingly, are the young men and women from economically depressed small towns and inner cities who are vigorously recruited with generous enlistment bonuses and education benefits. Subjected to multiple deployments, many return home with invisible wounds of PTSD and brain injuries. Many self-medicate with alcohol and drugs. Others succumb to suicide. After separation, they are unemployed at twice the national rate.

I agree with the Secretary that a return to ROTC at elite colleges won't help much to level the playing field of service. No one should expect college students to reverse the moral failure of the country to ask all of its citizens to share the burden of warfare.

As long as political leaders are unwilling to place their own family members in harm's way, then no one else will.

CHARLES B. RANGEL
Member of Congress

As I wrote earlier this week, a return to the draft will never happen. But Rangel's tradition of raising the issue is a useful reminder for everyone that the cost of our freedom is borne by a relative few.

By Jonathan Capehart  | October 11, 2010; 11:08 AM ET
Categories:  Capehart  | Tags:  Jonathan Capehart  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Nobel Peace Prize reaction: China's angry, the U.S. is subdued
Next: GOP parade of horribles: Rich Iott

Comments

While Representative Rangel's observations are accurate and reasonable, the existence of a draft did not deter our involvement in a long and brutal war in Vietnam. Even then, exceptions were manifold. Both wealth and political connections were exploited.

Although speculative, I suggest that many of the Democratic politician's "Yes" votes would not have changed the Congressional approval for our invasion of Iraq even if the draft were still in place.

Political ambitions, especially those for the Presidency, trump all other considerations, even the transparent fakery of the justifications for the invasion.

Read the list of "Yes" votes and wonder. Iraq's air force and navy were virtually non-existent. Their unmanned air "vehicle" was only a step above a balsa wood model. The aluminum tubes for the hypothetical uranium enrichment centrifuges were the wrong size and the wrong alloy. The weapons of mass destruction were imaginary, before and after the fact.

How many votes would have been changed? Why? Whose votes could they have been? What rationalizations would have been offered?

Wars have been and still are profitable. Most of our politicians are sensitive to the needs of those who thrive on the profits of war.

Posted by: russ2 | October 11, 2010 12:33 PM | Report abuse

We should have Universal Military Training as it existed in 1947. [Frenchie]

Posted by: umt123 | October 11, 2010 1:52 PM | Report abuse

Mr Capehart; all,

Concress-critter Rangel is a LIAR, a CROOK & too DUMB to have the seat that he fills.

of course, you can say exactly the SAME about BHO, Prince Harry Reid, Princess pelosi Chuckie Schumer & a HOST of other DIMocRATS "public servants" in DC.

PITY that we cannot seem to find GOOD/DECENT/HONORABLE people for these jobs. - fyi, i do NOT see "good things ahead" dfor this republic with such "leaders".

yours, TN46
Coordinator, CCTPP

Posted by: texasnative46 | October 12, 2010 5:26 PM | Report abuse

Post a Comment

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.




characters remaining

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company