Pigeonholed.

Rangel was making a prewar political statement, not responding to subsequent troop shortages (submitted January 2003, on the table since then).

What's wrong with bringing back the draft? As Rangel argues, conscription of the young and able might combat arm-chair hawkism. The Armed Forces currently function as our only public college fund (how laughably we compare on this issue across the Atlantic).

Consider Kerry's words today about the exploited state of our volunteer military:

"Our soldiers are stretched too thin.

The Administration's answer has been to put band-aids on the problem. They have effectively used a stop-loss policy as a back door draft. They have extended tours of duty, delayed retirements, and prevented enlisted personnel from leaving the service. Just yesterday, the Army announced this would affect even more soldiers whose units are headed to Iraq and Afghanistan. By employing these expedients, they've increased the forces by 30,000 troops.

But this has happened on the backs of the men and women who've already fulfilled their obligation to the armed forces and to our country."

Thanks for the insight on the Rangel angle, I saw that the bill was introduced back in Jan 03 and I was curious what the story was.

As for a draft combating armchair hawkism, tell me how this would work. It's not the 18 year old soldiers who are picking who we go to war with.

Kerry's words on the military being streched too thin should not be used in defense of a draft. A minute later Kerry remarked, "The 40,000 new troops I am adding will not be soldiers who've already been on the front lines, but new volunteers trained and ready to defend their country."

Yes the military is streched too thin and yes we could use more soldiers. However a draft does not bring quality soldiers, it just brings bodies to the front line. A well paid military that respects its employees (that is what they are when it boils down to it) creates quality soldiers.

Needless to say, avoiding an unjust war always helps with keeping our troops from being spread too thin.

Indeed. Supporters of the draft's reinstatement would argue that the specter of an equally-distributed national sacrifice would shield us from entering any war that isn't just.

Jenna and Barbara Bush are not in the military. Only three members of Congress have children serving in Iraq or Afghanistan. Would our representatives have so overwhelmingly supported the war if they had to put their children where their vote is?

Would we youths be so inactive politically if our futures were on the line?

Remember, many who chose the military do so because of lack of money or career opportunities. Is this true volunteerism? Or an economic draft?

See this op-ed, reprinted here.

It certainly is an interesting argument. While I agree that getting our nation's privileged sons and daughters into the military could have an effect on who we wage war upon, I still believe that a draft is against the freedoms we stand for. It is hard to use the phrase "mandatory military service" and "freedom" in the same sentence.

I propose that we find alternate solutions to enticing our best and brightest into serving their country. The GI Bill isn't going to cut it. Look at these numbers (source goarmy.com):

For a two-year enlistment, you can receive a total benefit of $30,000 for college ($833 per month for 36 academic months)

For a three-year enlistment, you can receive a total benefit of $37,000 for college ($1028 per month for 36 academic months)

For a four-year enlistment, you can receive a total benefit of more than $42,000 ($1,166 per month for 36 academic months)

For a five-year enlistment, you can receive a total benefit of $47,000 ($1,305 per month for 36 academic months)

For a six-year enlistment, you can receive a total benefit of $50,000 ($1,389 per month for 36 academic months)

We are paying our soldiers next to nothing for all the sacrifice they offer. I don't know if throwing more money into GI Bill benefits would do all that much, instead I suggest we restructure our entire view of what the military is and has to offer.

Imagine if you could get a highly sought after Ivy League equivalent education at a government/military school for "free". The price would be serving in the military *as* you get your education. Summer internships could be spent filling roles in government/military positions, etc. If I was offered a very competitive education in Computer Science, completed over 5 years while I also served a role in the military, it would have been a very tempting offer.

This scenario is a win-win for both our country and those serving in the military. We get the highly skilled, well trained military we need. Our soldiers come out of the military with an education matching their civilian peers rather than getting out of the military and finding themselves four years behind everyone else. Finally, our country benefits from releasing more educated persons into the workforce.

I believe ROTC is a step in the right direction. I went to school with many engineers who were attending school through the ROTC program and they were some of the most dedicated students I had met.

Too bad a draft isn't going to happen, a few years of military service might provide some real-world perspective to those whose brains have been swiss-cheesed by their failed government school. It had to be quite an epiphany for the young soldiers that came ashore in Iraq in the first Gulf War when the Iraqi soldiers came out to surrender, hungry and tired after surviving the bombing...fully expecting to be tortured or killed (as they were used to doing to enemies)... and were fed and clothed by American soldiers. Must have been a shock to them AND a shock to many of the American youngsters who hadn't been taught the inherent difference between their country and others who would practice torture and murder as policy.

Also, I could really do without any more election year crap about how Kerry cares about the military men and women. The men and women of the military have been a priority of Bush's from the beginning of his term. Most of you know because you likely criticized him for it at the time. Now suddenly the man whom I heard nothing but disdain for from this country's veterans of all wars last weekend in D.C., John Kerry, cares about our military men and women? Come on. I saw the President speak Monday at Arlington. It wasn't a political crowd, it was first come-first serve. The crowd was dominated by active military and veterans (mostly veterans). The speech was eloquent, non-political, and appreciative of all American sacfrifices past and present. I heard no boos..no protesting...and there was even a standing ovation for Donald Rumsfeld. Meanwhile, at the Vietnam Memorial, I later heard soundbytes of Senator Kerry attacking the President for supposedly cutting veterans benefits. All this while surrounded by a group of bikers (mostly vietnam vets) brandishing signs that said things like "stop Kerry" and "Veterans for Bush". Point is, there are very few veterans who buy this manufactured attempt to appeal to veterans and active military that the Kerry folks are trying to push.

The best quote I heard from a vietnam vet when we were walking past the Tomb of the Unknowns after the wreath-laying ceremony was "Too bad Kerry threw his medals over the fence or he could have been here too!" In other words, he would have not been received well in that crowd of America's heroes.