http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/1/14/151948/814

That's a section of the dailykos.com that ap215 linked to regarding this issue. I agree 100% with this statement. The Democrats will need to be the voice of opposition regarding the war in Iraq. The Democrats shouldn't be doing anything that supports or furthers the war effort. While I understand Rangel's point about the inequity of having a volunteer army made of primarily non-white Americans, conscription isn't the answer. We need to find a way to end this war, not a way to enable it to continue. I think it's terrible that Rangel's reintroducing this legislation. A draft is not the answer to the problem in Iraq.

He didn't even vote for his own bill when it came up for the vote last fall. This outweighs all the good he does as a Congressman in my opinion.

Rangel to reintroduce notorious draft bill Current rating: 19
by People Against the Draft
http://nyc.indymedia.org/newswire/display_any/138918
Email: contact (nospam) nodraft.info (unverified!) 13 Jan 2005
Rep. Charles Rangel intends to reintroduce legislation calling for resumption of the draft during the current Congressional term.
Rep. Charles Rangel intends to reintroduce legislation calling for resumption of the draft during the current Congressional term, according to a memo circulated by Bill Galvin of the Center on Conscience and War.

Rangel, it will be recalled, was the author of the notorious HR 163, the "universal" conscription bill that became a political football during the 2004 Presidential campaign. When charges that Bush would reinstate the
draft emerged as a red-hot election issue last October, HR 163 became a liability for the Kerry campaign -- whereupon Rangel's bill was rushed to the floor and summarily voted down by a huge majority. For tactical reasons even the bill's sponsors, including Rangel, voted against it.

With the election over, the way is clear for politicians on both sides of the aisle to get behind the draft, and Rep. Rangel will likely be leading the charge. According to Galvin's memo, CCW officers were told in a Dec. 21 meeting with Rangel's legislative director, Emile Milne, that Rangel will "probably introduce similar legislation" in the 2005 term.

Rangel continues to argue that conscription would force privileged Americans to share the burden of military service now disproportionately
carried by the poor and minorities. He also asserts that future wars would be made less likely by reintroduction of the draft.

Both arguments are wrong. Conscription has never made the Armed Services more equitable, racially or economically. During the Vietnam war, minority
draftees disproportionately served on the front lines. The affluent had, and still have, the means to gain medical deferments, or to secure soft, safe positions. If Rep. Rangel and other pro-draft "progressives" really wanted to fix social and racial inequities, they'd be advocating for jobs, education, and opportunity, not equal-opportunity warmaking. More broadly,
it's not "fair" to people of color and the poor to let the government draft the bodies it requires to wage endless wars -- wars that steal money from education, health, and other programs people need.

The draft has never acted as a deterrent to war. While the draft was in effect, the U.S. began numerous wars. In fact, during World War I, the
reason for the instatement of the draft was to ensure a steady flow of soldiers into the battlefield -- just as it would be in Iraq.

Former national security advisers Brent Scowcroft and Zbigniew Brzezinski recently estimated that the US requires 500,000 troops, and reinstatement of the draft, in order to sustain the war in Iraq. (LA Times, Jan. 8, 2005). Bush's aggressive foreign policy desperately needs the "boots on the
ground" that only a draft can supply. At best, Rangel's bill merely plays into Bush's hands. At worst, it's a stealth measure intended to supply "progressive" political cover for pro-draft Democrats.

The task ofthe antiwar movement is to deny bodies to the war machine, not hand them over on the silver platter of a bogus "progressive" rationale for conscription.

Please contact Rangel's office as soon as possible and let him know that we will not tolerate reintroduction of the draft:


Washington DC Office
2354 Rayburn House
Washington, DC 20515
(202) 225-4365

New York Office
163 W. 125th Street #737
New York, NY 10027
(212) 663-3900

http://rangel.house.gov/contact.shtml

Best,

Jake Levich
People Against the Draft
http://www.nodraft.info
See also:
http://www.nodraft.info :mad:

Rangel is making a statement. The same statement that Michael Moore was making in F9/11 about the poor being sent to fight our wars. This is true and I for one am sick of hearing conservative 20-somethings, who grew-up in upper middle-class suburbia with every advantage, constantly defending Bush and this war. It would be nice if spoiled brats had to 'put their money where their mouth is' so to speak.

I agree that this shouldn't be another war fought by underprivileged kids while the rich kids sit back and do nothing. But this shouldn't be a war at all, and sending more kids there, regardless of what race, economic group, or party they're affiliated with, is wrong. My kid is one of those privileged white kids who'd be called up if there's a draft. Am I really supposed to accept sending him to Iraq rather than to college next year? I know--people are all for the war and all for the draft until their kid gets called up, or worse, killed. But I'm not one of those people. I know this war is wrong. I knew it was wrong before it was ever started. I know it never should've been waged in the first place. And I didn't vote for the man who started it. So, should I be penalized by having my most precious thing in this world taken away from me? Should my son have to sacrifice his life because some rich Senator's son won't go? Our own Chris Jackson has just turned 18. Should he have to go fight this war? I'm sorry, Rangel's idea is not the solution. The solution is to find a way out ofr Iraq and bring our troops home, not send more of them there. And I'd be saying that whether I had a son who was going to be eligible for the draft in four months or not.

I saw a piece on the news tonight about some man whose daughter was killed recently in Iraq. He's totally distraught, of course. And he's totally against the war. And they ended the segment with him saying, "And the worst thing is, it should never have happened." Let's not fight this war by sending more troops in to die. That's like the proverbial throwing good money after bad, except it's lives we're talking about. Let's work to end this war, or at least end our participation in this war, and not even think about a draft. It's just plain wrong to send more troops in to fight a war we shouldn't be fighting in the first place. It took them years to accept that in Vietnam. Years, and thousands of American lives. Let's not make that mistake again.

You're right about the war of course. I'm just make a point about the principle. And I doubt any child of yours would be defending Bush or supporting this war.

I've said all along that I understand Rangel's point. It raises a really hard question, because in principle I always oppose a draft--I don't think it's right for anyone to be forced to kill or be killed when they don't want to. And yet, there are times when our country needs to go to war and needs people to fight that war. The problem is, this wasn't one of those times. I can't support a draft for this war. I couldn't support it for Vietnam, either. Rangel's point is well taken, that it can't always just be the poor and underprivileged minorities who have to give up their lives for their country. But I'm not sure that someone who opposes this war should be forced to do that either. This is a really sticky topic with no good answer. I just don't think that Rangel's answer is the right solution because of the nature of this particular war.