Friday, Jan. 17, 2003 | 4:32 a.m.
New York Democrat Rep. Charles B. Rangel promised to submit a bill to resume the military draft. Several years ago this same idea came up when our country was moving to eject Saddam Hussein's forces from Kuwait. The suggestion this time will probably fail again, as it did 12 years ago.
Rangel, a senior congressman, served in Korea with a combat outfit attached to the 2nd Infantry Division. That division is still serving in Korea along the DMZ.
Last week in The New York Times, Rangel explained his support for the resumption of the draft, which was dropped soon after the end of the Vietnam War. The unequal use of draft deferments during that unpopular war brought pressure which resulted in the volunteer military forces we have used in several minor conflicts and Desert Storm.
Rangel, who voted against the congressional resolution giving President Bush authority to attack Iraq, wrote: "Carrying out the administration's policy toward Iraq will require long-term sacrifices by the American people, particularly those who have sons and daughters in the military. Yet the Congress that voted overwhelmingly to allow the use of force in Iraq includes only one member who has a child in the enlisted ranks of the military -- just a few more have children who are officers.
"I believe that if those calling for war knew that their children were likely to be required to serve -- and to be placed in harm's way -- there would be more caution and a greater willingness to work with the international community in dealing with Iraq. A renewed draft will help bring a greater appreciation of the consequences of decisions to go to war.
"Service in our nation's armed forces is no longer a common experience. A disproportionate number of the poor and members of minority groups make up the enlisted ranks of the military, while the most privileged Americans are underrepresented or absent.
"We need to return to the tradition of the citizen soldier with alternative national service required for those who cannot serve because of physical limitations or reasons of conscience."
Twenty years ago I would have agreed with Rangel. In fact, I wrote a column supporting the return of the draft. It drew more than a few negative letters, as did Rangel's recent editorial piece in the Times.
When traveling the world's trouble spots I have noted the high professionalism among the men and women now serving in our modern forces. They are a very effective and skilled fighting force with the necessary killing power needed for success. It's doubtful that a military draft, cranked up to meet today's problems, would be more effective. Added numbers would not necessarily mean a better and more effective military.
Rangel's thinking isn't all wrong, because much can be said about the value of broad participation for all levels of society in our military forces. The men in my combat platoon came from farms and cities with several levels of education. Most of the draftees had one thing in mind, and that was to get the job done and go back to their civilian lives and jobs. Thousands were fortunate in achieving both goals with honor.
Because of the integration of our regular, National Guard and reserve units in the volunteer military forces, we may eventually need a draft. How many times will the person with a civilian job and family expect to be called up for active duty? If it continues to happen at the pace being set today, there may be less desire for enlistment in these military-civilian units.
At this time any talk of restarting the military draft won't find much support among large numbers of citizens and lawmakers. Despite this conclusion, Rangel should be complimented for making fellow members of Congress do some deep thinking before nodding in agreement with war resolutions. How many times will the person with a civilian job and family expect to be called up for active duty?
archive
