House Shoots Down Draft, 402-2

The House of Representatives voted on bill to reinstate the draft by Democrat Charles Rangel (NY), and defeated it soundly, 402-2. The bill, which languished in Congress with no real support since its introduction in January 2003, has often been used as evidence the Republicans favor a draft, despite the fact that a Democrat sponsored it, 14 other Democrats cosponsored it, and no Republicans supported it. The rumors reached urban legend status, leading the House Republicans to take the uncommon step of voting on a bill that was not under remotely serious consideration. The two voting in favor of the bill were Democrats John Murtha (PA) and Pete Stark (CA), who was one of the cosponsors. Republican Senate majority leader Bill Frist said the Senate will not address the issue.

Comments

GOOD!

[thief_inc]

Thank God. It was political smoke and mirrors anyways. As a veteran I can say without a doubt in my mind, no military members want draftees. If you can get enough people to serve voluntarily maybe you shouldn't be fighting.

Re:GOOD!

[dtfinch]

The bill was introduced by Charles Rangel to prevent wars. His stated intentions:
...to make it clear that if there were a war, there would be more equitable representation of people making sacrifices...

I truly believe that those who make the decision and those who support the United States going into war would feel more readily the pain that's involved, the sacrifice that's involved, if they thought that the fighting force would include the affluent and those who historically have avoided this great responsibility.

His point was that we'd be less likely to go to war if people of all classes, rich and poor, had to fight.

Re:GOOD!

[MrWa]

And maybe, if you force enough people to serve against their will, the general public will get interested enough to do something about a war which they don't support.

As it is now, anytime someone wants to speak out against the war, someone will say "what about the troops" or "you should support the troops". Screw that. Those people are there voluntarily. This makes it very, very easy for those back at home to "support" the war because it doesn't cause any pain. (Those directly impacted by someone serving is a different matter...)

War should be painful. Not for those that volunteered for the armed forces because they wanted to learn a skill and maybe earn some scholarship money. It should be painful for everyone in the country that decided war - especially a preemptive war! - was necessary.

That is what reinstating the draft would accomplish. Along with getting enough troops to do the whole thing right; something which anyone serving should want to happen. To say that draftees are no good at fighting spits in the face of many, many veterans that have served in past wars (WWI,WWII, Vietnam...) and performed admirably. As a veteran I can speak for myself (and not everyone else, as you seemed to think you are entitled) when I say that everyone in a democracy should be forced to serve - if not in the military, then in some form of civil duty - to enforce the need to participate. Maybe then we would not have presidents elected with less than half of the voters, which compromise less than half the eligible voting population!

Re:GOOD!

[jim_v2000]

As it is now, anytime someone wants to speak out against the war, someone will say "what about the troops" or "you should support the troops". Screw that. Those people are there voluntarily.

Exactly, they are there voluntarily. How would you feel if you volunteered to do something good for your country, and got spit on for it? You probably wouldn't volunteer again, nor would others be encouraged to do so. Support your troops!

This makes it very, very easy for those back at home to "support" the war because it doesn't cause any pain. (Those directly impacted by someone serving is a different matter...)

Volunteer soldiers DO have families and friends too.

War should be painful. Not for those that volunteered for the armed forces because they wanted to learn a skill and maybe earn some scholarship money.

Ok, the military is not a free education and exercise program. That comes as a perk to the real job, which is being a soldier. And what do soldiers do? Go to battle. That's the job description. Soldiers know what they are in for when they volunteer, although they may hope that they don't see battle.

Re:GOOD!

[ZenHarbinger]

I don't see what that has to do with it. It's not like we get to decide if we go to war. There's no public vote for it.

And I doubt any congressmen will be drafted.

All we can do is then vote out the congressmen whom we disagree with.

Re:GOOD!

[ConceptJunkie]

I will be completely useless

That's a cop out. Many conscientious objectors served valiantly as medics or in other capacities that did not require them to kill. These people were as brave and honorable as those who fought on the front lines, with whom they worked. (In a way more so, because they couldn't defend themselves)

We really didn't learn any lessons from Vietnam at all did we?

Sure we did. The only people who are talking about the draft are the ones who are using the idea in a deceitful attempt to scare people into voting against the President.

Re:GOOD!

[anaesthetica]

That doesn't really make sense though: rich people have always been able to avoid the draft, while poor people were always stuck with it. Introducing a draft does little to nothing to change the rich-poor divide in the armed services. Further, except in times of great conflict, the United States, like all liberal democracies, has avoided compulsory military service, opting instead for a fully civilian-controlled volunteer army. Mandating that kids join the lowest ranks isn't going to change how the Generals fight America's war either.

Re:GOOD!

[anaesthetica]

...if you force enough people to serve against their will, the general public will get interested enough to do something about a war which they don't support.

This is just about the most anti-democratic statement I've ever heard on slashdot. Why parent thinks it's acceptable to run roughshod over people's freedoms simply to make a political point against a war they object to is inconceivable to me.

Re:GOOD!

[Shakrai]

Right, b/c all those weapons* that were supposed to make war too terrible have put end to war.

Nuclear weapons have put an end to large scale wars. Do you seriously think that if it wasn't for nukes WW2 wouldn't have been proceeded by WW3 in short order?

Nukes raise the cost of war to the point where it is unthinkable. There's simply nothing worth fighting over badly enough to risk New York or Moscow (and the millions of people therein) being turned into glass parking lots.

Previous related article...

[neitzsche]

U.S. Plans targeted Draft for Computer Personnel

So while the wheels are turning putting things into place, the house votes this issue away.

What's to stop them from reintroducing it (or a similar bill) immediately *after* the election?

If our politicans routinely acted ethically, I wouldn't be worried, but right now I'm looking for my tin-foil hat!

Naughty, pudge

[Pluvius]

The argument isn't that Republicans favor a draft (I don't think any politician in his right mind would publically support a draft today, except to make a point), but that there is no way to get enough troops to do everything that the Bush administration wants to do without either reinstating the draft or restoring the confidence of our allies and our citizens.

Rob

Re:Naughty, pudge

[overunderunderdone]

That may be YOUR argument, but that is not the argument of the emails that were going around to college students.

As for your argument. Rumsfeld (and by extension this administration) has been a big advocate for a numerically smaller, higher tech military for a very long time. I very much doubt Rumsfeld would EVER want a draft, which is just completely counter to his entire approach to the military.

On the other hand it was KERRY that pledged to enlarge the military by an additional 40,000 troops, has criticized the administration for not having enough troops on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan, and has criticized the planned drawdown of troops in Western Europe and South Korea. Also Democrats, Kerry foremost among them, have generally opposed the kind of expensive, high-tech weapons development that means we can do more with fewer troops.

Bush IS a cowboy, he might get us into more wars. Then again Kerry is on record essentially favoring issuing an empty threat* a position that is perhaps even MORE risky in the long run. It is a dangerous world and even the most dovish President may (regretfully) find us in a war. Giving their different approaches to the military (smaller size & more expensive equipment vs. larger size & less expensive equipment) which approach is more likely to result in a draft?

*Voting FOR an war ultimatum to gain "diplomatic leverage", but then stating he could conceive of "no circumstances" where he would have followed through.

My Opinion

[MBCook]

I've been staying away from the politics section (at least untill the election is over) because so many of the things I see make me very mad (the viewpoints), especially here on /. (which is quite liberal when I've very conservative).

That said, I don't see how anyone thought this was a serious issue, or that by electing Bush we would be bringing back the draft (as has been insinuated by some small groups, not the DNC as far as I know). First off was the small problem that... the president can't reinstate the draft, it would take congress (you know, that silly checks and balances thing).

My second question would be (this is to those who said the draft would be reinstated)... why? What political purpose would it serve (besides increasing troop numbers)? I would piss off your voters, it would mean more wealthy people in the service (aren't republicans supposed to do things to FAVOR the wealthy?). The idea has never made sense to me.

Lets face it. Bringing back the draft has NO support. With the exception of a crackpot here or there, I would expect France to try to annex the US before I would expect the draft to have a real chance at comming back.

I'd also like to thank /. for pointing out that the only representatives pushing this were democrats. Whenever I've heard activists saying Bush would bring back the draft, they always fail to mention that part. Also note that CBS was snookered again the other day when they had some lady crying about how Bush would bring back the draft and her son would go get killed in Iraq. It turned out she was a known anti-Bush activist.

This was never a serious issue (in that it was not where near likely), but it has been interesting in the way of seeing how fast an urban legend can take hold. I heard a story (about a week ago) about a kid who convinced a friend to shoot him in the foot so he wouldn't get drafted. Then when he was at the hospital, it was pointed out to him that there was no draft.

How could two kids (they must have been high-school aged if they were worried about being drafted) not know there was no draft in the first place?

--End Mini-Rant---

Re:My opinion

[(trb001)]

get a earful from political commentators about how great this whole war thing is.

I'll bite, what channel are YOU watching? I watch a lot of FoxNews, which many on this site would argue is the equivalent of an RNC talking head, and nobody is talking about how great this war is. The most common questions asked revolve around "Is this war actually winnable?" and "Is the situation worsening?", and neither of them are rhetorical in either direction.

I flip to CNN and MSNBC on occasion as well, and those channels are both more pessimistic about the outcome. So unless you live in a remote, Republican controlled section of Texas, wtf?

--trb

Re:My opinion

[Rayonic]

> chickenhawks

If I can't support a war without having served in the military, then you can't support gay marriage without having taken it up the ass a few times.

Re:My opinion

[dbrutus]

Unless you're going to have a 6 year draft, with extensions, you're never going to get the kind of longevity needed to maintain a military that takes this few casualties during operations. The reason the Pentagon is opposed to a draft (and they are, viscerally) is that it's going to add to their troop losses by multiple factors of ten. If you think you can't make a political point without getting a lot of people killed, something's wrong with you.

No, the argument is

[porkchop_d_clown]

that the secret plan is to pass those bills and have a fully operating draft by june of this year.

Given how many paniced brothers and sisters of mine received that e-mail, the Republicans did the right thing.

Machivellian....

[identity0]

Okay, did the dems seriously believe that people would fall for this? Or did they thinnk the repubs were so stupid and warmongering that they would support it even if it shot down their president's campaign? I don't think that kind of really blatant political manuevering would work, even in the U.S.; you have to make it more subtle.

I have been thinking though, that it might be in the best interests of the dems to just let Bush win this election and try to get their man in office in 2008. Think about it this way: no matter who's in office, a lot of bad shit is going to happen. There's going to be another terrorist attack sooner or later, Iraq is going to get worse, and the economy probobly won't improve anytime soon. If Kerry gets in this year, a lot of people might blame him for bad stuff that happens on his watch, and go "Look what happened when we voted democrat". It might be better for them to just let Bush deal with the consequences of his actions and let people see how bad his ideas really were, kina like how Nixon created a lot of disgust for the republicans after re-election.

But then, I'm not sure I trust Bush not to start a nuclear war in the next 4 years.

Re:Machivellian....

[SuiteSisterMary]

The flip side, of course, is that an animal backed into a corner, with nowhere to run, will generally lash out.

Or, put another way, it works great until your bluff is called. The Soviets, at least, didn't want to die. Rattling your sabre at somebody who honestly believes that if they die trying to kill you, they will be assured a place in Paradise tends to not quite have the effect you're hoping for.

Re:Machivellian....

[AoT]

Because that's worked so well for the Israelis.

My opinion

[Awptimus Prime]

Personally, I wish the draft would go back into effect.

Every day, I come to work and listen to chickenhawks go on about how we should crush Iraq, Iran, N Korea, etc. Then I go to the bar and every other person seems to be talking about how brave GWB is for sending someone else's kids off to fight. Then, I go home and turn on the news and get a earful from political commentators about how great this whole war thing is.

Now, it is obvious this pro-war talk is coming from people who know for a fact they will face no personal danger to themselves. With a fair draft, we could start sending these people over who support this mess so much. Let them and their kids go breath some DU dust, smell burning/decomposing bodies, watch a few friends die horrible deaths, and be forced to live off a private's salary. I'd be willing to bet we'd get the hell out of Iraq and distance ourselves from most of the conflicts people make such a big stand on.

So, my hat is off to the 2 people in our government who actually understand why a draft is important. It is too bad the rest of the nation doesn't have the balls to put their money where their mouth is.

Sigh.

[porkchop_d_clown]

Who introduced those bills? The democrats.

Who is trying to frighten college kids with stories of how they will be drafted if Bush is re-elected? The democrats.

Who would freak if the draft was reinstated, because it would require years to reactivate old training bases and divert seasoned combat troops back state side to teach the draftees? The Pentagon.

Who actually wants a draft? Nobody, except, possibly, a few radical leftists who want to be able to say "we told you so".

Re:Sigh.

[Pluvius]

Who is trying to frighten college kids with stories of how they will be drafted if Bush is re-elected? The democrats.

It's not "the Democrats," just "Democrats." There's a difference. Unless you care to provide proof that the DNC is behind this little hoax?

Rob

Re:Sigh.

[dtfinch]

The bill was never intended (by the democrat who introduced it) to be construed a a republican plot, or to ever go to a vote. It was a "what if" argument intended to make reprentatives consider the consequences to average citizens of voting in favor of unnecessary wars.

Re:Sigh.

[multimed]

That's true. And there's something to be said for trying to get people especially politicians to actually stop and think about something. But it is absolutely slimy and dirty politics for Kerry et. al. to say say "If Bush wins he'll reinstate the draft" and use the bills as a evidence. The Replublicans has no choice but to bring it to a vote in order to kill the bill and kill the FUD.

You're not the only one thinking about 2008.

[porkchop_d_clown]

There are some Democrats hoping Kerry will lose so that Hillary can run in 2008; likewise there are some Republicans who want Kerry to win so they can avoid having to deal with a Madam President in 2009.

The problem is that a lot of people are taking

[porkchop_d_clown]

that hoax quite seriously.

In any case, I would dispute the idea that Bush would "have to revive the draft" - it's far more likely that he'd be forced to lower his expectations instead.

Similarly, I think the odds of a President Kerry suddenly getting tens of thousands of French and German troops into Iraq to be long at best and more likely wishful. Neither the French nor the Germans have demonstrated any real ability to deploy a large number of troops at all, let alone for an extended trip to the desert. Plus there's the fact that France has stated that they don't care who the President is, they won't deploy troops to Iraq.

Re:The problem is that a lot of people are taking

[Spectra72]

Yes, it is amazing to watch the leap of logic required to believe that Kerry is going to convince nations (with their own self-interest) to send their troops into the mess that is currently Iraq just so the US can lower its percentage of the casualties.

That's a great sales pitch. US: "Hey France, we want you to take on 15% of our casualties...how's about it?" France: "Let's see, currently we're taking 0% casualties and we get to pontificate about the American Pig-Dogs at our leisure...er, how about NOT."

Re:The problem is that a lot of people are taking

[totatis]

Neither the French nor the Germans have demonstrated any real ability to deploy a large number of troops at all, let alone for an extended trip to the desert.

Altrough there is no way that France will deploy troops for this war, I kindly remind you that in Gulf War 1, the French were present, and were the one who went the farest (sp?) in the desert. They penetrated further in Irak than any other nation, USA included.

Don't confuse the unwillingness to enter a war that 99% of the population opposes with its inability to do so.

The French army, while certainly a lot less as mighty as the American one is still not a joke, by far. They have good equipment, good training, and can be efficient in conflict (unless against the Germans, happily, we are now friendlier with the Germans than ever).

That precision done, you won't in fact see French troops in Iraq. The idea here is that we did everything to prevent the war, and that means we don't have a duty to go there and fix what the Bush adminstration has fucked up. And I totally agree with that.

Re:The problem is that a lot of people are taking

[antifoidulus]

Neither the French nor the Germans have demonstrated any real ability to deploy a large number of troops at all,
Um, you do realize that both French and German troops are currently in Afghanistan, and they have been there for quite a while. Even the American commander in Afghanistan said he counts the French troops among the best he has. Last time I checked, large parts of Afghanistan are deserts, and very rough deserts at that.
Maybe you should stop watching so much Bill O'Reilly, and oh I dunno, go learn a fact or two, then come back and we can talk.

Will MTV still fearmonger like before?

[aggiefalcon01]

One of MTV's huge reasons to get kids to vote is to scare them with the draft. Wonder if MTV will stop, now that the issue's dead. Somehow, I doubt it.

That's funny, John Edwards just said...

[foniksonik]

During tonight's debate, John Edwards stated that John Kerry and He would "raise the active-duty forces by 40,000" hmmm that sounds like it might involve some sort of draft... what other incentive can they offer to entice more active duty forces during a war time?

Read the bill.

[flamingweasel]

This bill was never meant to go to a vote, nor did its author expect it to go anywhere. If you RTFB, you'll see it's 2 years of mandatory service for all. This was a bill to make a political point, that all of these congressman would never send their sons and daughters off to die for this war, but would happily send all the poor folks who serve as our military off to die in the desert.

This wasn't Machiavellian, it was a statement. Obviously lost on almost everyone.

Re:Read the bill.

[dbrutus]

Statistically, the children of Congress are over represented in Iraq by 4-5 times compared to any set of 535 random US families. How much more over representation has to occur before liberals stop drinking Michael Moore's koolaid?

Re:Read the bill.

[tyen]

This is for all the responding posts to the parent asking for corroboration. 10 minutes of Googling later, here (requires registration) are some related links.

No one has been able to fully enumerate the five Congressional members and their offspring who are serving in Iraq. However, some facts pointed out in this discussion:

1. Moore never asserted in his movie that the children of US Congressmen are under-represented in US forces in Iraq. See the movie transcript to verify from primary source. Instead, he asked the people that authorized the Iraq war (members of Congress) if they would send thier kids to Iraq.
2. Equally factual is that in the United States, you can only enlist in the armed forces when you are of the age of majority. Meaning your parents (the Congressmen Moore was posing his question to) cannot do what he posits. They can no more send their children to Iraq than violate some fundamental precepts of the Constitution.
3. Quote: Senators and Congressmen (and Pentagon workers, and the President himself) ARE on the front lines of this war, and have been since its opening salvo. They don't need their children to be put in harm's way to show their bravery and resolve. They need only show up for work. If you don't think Washington, D.C. is a target, you haven't been listening to Osama.
4. The Congressional members who are known to have children serving in the Enduring Freedom theatre of operations or are expected to be there soon are: Sen. Tim Johnson, D-SD, son Brooks Johnson, 31, a staff sergeant with the Army's 101st Airborne Division; Rep. John Kline, R-MN, son, Dan Kline who is slotted for shipping out.
5. For anyone who still wants to play the statistics game and still assert that Congress members' families are under-represented, fine. Let's see where the numbers take us. Quote: The correct comparison would be to compare the total number of parents in the US with children of military age over the total number of troops and then the same comparison in the Congress - number of Reps with children of military age vs. number serving...assume that all people from the age of 40 to 79 have children of military age and likewise all Congressional Reps. - the errors are likely to be in the same direction (overstated in both cases) and so even out. There are around 130 million in the 40 to 79 age group. So the rate of service is around 1 per thousand potential parents. Applying this to Congress, you'd expect less than 1 child in Iraq. Instead, we can count one for certain, possibly another four depending upon your sources. So the representation, in known terms from primary sources, is at least the enlistment rate of the general population.
6. This is just immediate family members. Including first relations, representation of Congress members' families is likely to go much, much higher. If you are a Moore fan, would you care to chase down primary sources on that, which will only widen the gap further, o

Not good even as a protest move

[chitownIrish]

Rangel introduced this measure under the idea that if a draft were reinstated, the chickenhawks would tone down their rhetoric when it might mean that their kids would be the ones fighting.

The problem with this is twofold. First, the powerful will find a way to keep their kids out of harm's way no matter what laws are passed (even if the National Guard is no longer a safe haven).

Second, even if it were to soften the stance of some hawks, it would likely not do so until after a lot of kids (like my 17 year old son) get their asses shot off.

The problem with this argument

[wrinkledshirt]

The problem with your argument (and I totally agree with you, in theory) is that it's easy for the privileged to avoid getting drafted. You only have to look at the same chickenhawks in this administration who are pushing the ongoing war on terrorism that managed to avoid any real military service of their own back when they had a draft.

Re:Hillary? Not a chance

[CptNerd]

Hillary has a lock on the 2008 election because she has a lock on the Dem nomination, and the Republicans can't field anyone with anywhere near the name recognition and experience. Cheney won't run, Schwartzenegger can't run, Giuliani might run but won't have the conservative base behind him.

Hillary also has the "pleasant" memories of the first Clinton term in her favor, and what "progressive" wouldn't vote for the first woman candidate for President? (conveniently forgetting all the others through the years).

No, the '08 election is Hillary's to lose.

Get your facts straight!

[ZosX]

Who is trying to frighten college kids with stories of how they will be drafted if Bush is re-elected? The democrats.

It's not "the Democrats," just "Democrats." There's a difference. Unless you care to provide proof that the DNC is behind this little hoax?

Rob

This is a good point. If "the Democrats" were behind this bill, they would have voted along the party lines, but this was not the case, only one person voted for the bill. Please do not make broad statements with little to no evidence to back them up, or did you take the Bush school of politics? One person voting for a bill does not equal a Democratic ploy.

Re:What's more equitable than choice?

[b-baggins]

---
cushy tour in National Guard.
---

Thank you for spitting in the face of all the National Guardsmen now currently serving in Iraq.

Jackass.

Rangel didn't even vote for it?

[raider_red]

Congressman Rangel didn't even vote for the bill? Or did he just not show up?

I hope this puts to rest the rumors about the Republicans' desire to reinstate the draft. It's interesting that the only person to even introduce the idea in the legislature is a Democrat.

Congressional Children in Military

[porkchop_d_clown]

Senator Tim Johnson's son is in the 101st Airborne and served in Iraq.

Representative Duncan Hunter's son is a Marine and was in Iraq as of February 2004.

Senator Joe Biden's is on active duty, but not in Iraq.

Outside of Congress: John Ashcroft's son is active duty Navy, deployed to the Persian Gulf

Rep Kennedy - the guy Moore mocks in the movie? His nephew is active duty, but Moore edited that out of the final movie.

So, excluding nephews and Ashcroft's son, and excluding the guy who wasn't deployed to Iraq, that gives us 2 sons out of 535 congressmen, a ratio of 268 to 1. According to the cenus bureau, 104,705,000 households in the United States in 2000. If we guess that 300,000 service men and women have been deployed to Iraq and different times, the ratio of households to Iraqi vets is 104,705,000 to 300,000. This reduces to a ratio of 349 to 1.

Thus, children of congressmen are over-represented in Iraq.

And who voted for it?

[mec]

And who put the current draft registration system in place? Republican President Jimmy Carter. The bill was filibustered in the Senate by Democratic Senator Mark Hatfield of Oregon, but the Senate overrode the veto.

Oh wait. Reality check. Carter was a Democrat, and the opposition and filibuster were conducted by Republicans.