RichmondLiberty.org

by Robert Russo

On November 19th the incoming chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, Rep. Charles Rangel of New York, declared on "Face the Nation" his intent to reinstitute the draft, one of innumerable plans to do so that have come and gone in failure whenever there is a political shakeup. His case is that it will help the War in Iraq and help to avoid future wars, but this logic seems as shifty as the idea of a draft itself imposing on our personal freedoms.
Rangel says "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.".* So basically the forced enlistment of thousands of unwilling civilians is to be used as a political tool to sway the President and congress. If I were a congressman I would feel insulted that this suggests they don’t care about their soldiers already, or they care less than if there were twice as many. It also assumes the President and congress would not go to war which they might well be encouraged to do with a larger force. The idea of recruiting new soldiers and training them so they won’t be used is not only absurd, it is a waste of their time and training.
On the other hand he also says "If we're going to challenge Iran and challenge North Korea and then… …to send more troops to Iraq, we can't do that without a draft.".* This leads one to ask which side is he on? In 2003 Rangel proposed a draft for ages 18-26, then earlier this year expanded this to mandate military service up to age 42.*
Futile endeavors like this are always the brainchild of a brooding individual who was indoctrinated by a private brotherhood, warped by a mental regime not of his choosing, and now has to live with himself in a world that doesn’t know it’s a cure-all solution and not an infringement on any rights people may have. It is deeper in his mind than any political affiliation, separating him from 21st Century society where personal freedom is sacred. The real purpose of this is revealed in the words "…having a draft would not necessarily mean everyone called to duty would have to serve. Instead, ‘young people (would) commit themselves to a couple of years in service to this great republic, whether it's our seaports, our airports, in schools, in hospitals,’ with a promise of educational benefits at the end of service.".* In other words he is promoting his way of life, as we all do, in the belief that it will make them better countrymen and agree with him politically (and the compensation costs nothing, anyone can write out a thousand "promises"). People living the same code as him can be trusted, he doesn’t have to worry about them standing in the way of progress.
Fortunately a Democratic majority is not any more inclined to vote on this than Republicans. There is no Pro-Draft Party. The public is against it on a subconscious level because the very thought is uncomfortable. (Much like people don’t openly oppose the health media but they still ignore what it says.) Even military leaders support an all-volunteer militia, because changing that would bring all manner of problems on them and dilute their elitist philosophy and ability.
There is a way to augment our forces with new blood but I’ve never seen it proposed, the founding of a new non-military branch of the armed forces, or the conversion of the civil service into a full branch. The problem with finding a military solution is every other field (education, industry, the sciences) has a choice of competing providers to ensure balance, except defense. It is the perfect monopoly, the provider is the service. You can’t defend this country unless you prescribe to one institution’s philosophy. A civilian corps would likely be difficult and disorganized, but it would allow non-military citizens to serve and in turn the armed forces would receive more specialists. Then as it grows, the country will one day be able to choose which credo they want defending them.
Thankfully none of us have to care about what one congressman says (especially when he is opposed throughout his own party), but when someone says they want me to be forcibly enlisted so they can achieve their political goals I find it offensive. Though I live and work close to Ft. Lee and have friends who work there, I have the pleasure of living a life in which the military has no presence. The sight of soldiers is strange to me, and likewise people are apprehensive in approaching someone in combat fatigues or requesting military action knowing their way of life, their questionable recruitment methods. Some people trained to be human weapons are easier to befriend than others. Rangel wants this military-embracing society, but in the words of Donald Rumsfeld, "there isn't a chance in the world that the draft will be brought back.".* For the full text of this story go to http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/11/19/rangel.draft.ap/index.html.

*http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/11/19/rangel.draft.ap/index.html

Question of the Week: Are Libertarians naturally anti-military because that institution brainwashes its members, or is it somehow exempt? If so, what exempts it? Send your opinions to henrico@richmondliberty.org.
If you have topics of interest to Libertarians please let us know. We welcome your input!