Monday, November 20, 2006
Rep. Charlie Rangel and the Draft
Earlier today it hit the news that Rep. Charlie Rangel (D-NY) wanted to reinstate the draft, he plans on introducing the Bill in January 2007. He feels that the military unfairly targets less priviledged members of society in their recruitment. He also stated that if there were a draft then the Congress would be less likely to vote for war since their children would be in the military. He also inferred that the lack of elite members of society in the military (i.e. the number of conresssmen and women with children in the military) allowed the Congress to unfairly send "other people's children" to war - not their own.
Rep. Rangel's though process and facts are so flawed that I will attempt to systematically address each of his errors in judgement. And I won't even attempt to address the issue of what a forced military vs. a volunteer military would do to our armed services
1) "Elite's in the Military" - Part 1
The last numbers I was able to find had about 5 children of House and Senate Members in the military right now. That does not include children of the Congress who were members in the military, but are now too old or retired. That means that roughly 1% of the Congress has children currently in the military. How many American's are in the military, at all levels of participation? I don't think it is 3 million, but lets say for arguments sake it is 3 million, that is 1% of the population. This means that children of Congressmen and women are members of the military at the same rate as the general population has children in the military.
2) "Elite's in the Military" - Part 2
I do not appreciate Congressmen (like Rep. Rangel) refering to the Congress as THE Elite of America. Based on success, status, income, etc. their are many factors that can place a family in the "elite socio-economic status" in America. So, what about all of the "elite" citizens who have children in college ROTC programs? What about all of the children of current members of the military (as well as the rich) who have children at one of America's prestigious Academies? What about "elite" families who have children that just plainly enlisted? Yet again, another Congressman (a la John Kerry) passively insults members of our military.
3) "Me and my Kids Want to Serve"
Rep. Rangel stated: "I am making a statement against all wars that can not gen[erate] up enough confidence that people are willing to say 'my country is in danger, I want to serve, my kids want to serve'." Rep. Rangel should go back and re-read the history of the American Civilian during American Wars.
According to his flawed belief he would have been against The American Revolution because only about 1/3 of Americans wanted war.
He would have been against the Civil War because over half of the country was opposed to the war for various reasons: they didn't believe in deploying forces on native soil, they just wanted to let the South go, they didn't care, they were proslavery, to name a few.
Rep. Rangel would be remiss if he failed to recognize that most Americans did not want to enter WWII until Pearl Harbor, despite the fact that now it seems like it would have been a good idea to officially get involved earlier.
Most Americans were completely against WWI.
A majority of Americans actually were in favor of the Vietnam War in 1965 (although not in 1970).
So, while popular support is always helpful in war, very rarily is our country 100% (or even close) behind military action. According the Rep. Rangel's criteria America would have never fought a war.
4) "No Better Option"
Rep. Rangel argues that it is unfair that the military recruits in "poorer" parts of town. Well, what are the benefits (other than serving your country) of joining the military? Opportunity. Plain and simple, it is an opportunity for a better life. Why is this suddenly viewed so negatively? Why the backlash? Their are people who would never have had a chance at an education, at a good job, at security or even a chance to better their lives without the military. At no time is anyone forced to join the military. Someone who had a priviledged life has many choices, the military being only one of many. So there is a good chance they will choose something that better suits their desires. Now, someone who grows up to have no options is suddenly given a choice between the status quo and the military - so there is obviously a good chance they will choose to serve. What is wrong with that? Absolutely nothing. To me, it looks like someone chose to improve their life by the only means made available to them. Education, a pay check, health care, etc are not free - so the military does require that when our country needs them that these soldiers and sailors serve. Nevertheless, this is the choice they made.
5) "Recruiting"
What is wrong with recruiting. There are many jobs with many companies that are dead-end jobs. There are underpaying jobs, there are jobs with no benefits, there are jobs with no option to attend school. There are actually signs in McDonald's recruiting teenagers to work for minimum wage with the promise of eventually getting promoted. In other words, some day they could become a manager if they work long and hard and put in enough years. There are companies that sell cigarettes that recruit workers. There are companies of every size, shape and moral make-up that recruit workers. Why can't the military recruit. The military offers "advanced training," an education and the opportunity to enter the job force as former military.
Rep Rangel, who as a side note recently questioned why anyone would ever want to live in Mississippi, obviously has a skewed sense of reality. While he may be anti-Iraq, many people do not agree with him. And while he uses the military as a whipping post for his own political adgenda, yet again the average soldier and sailor is made to feel "less than" so Rangel can prove a point. Rangel served in Korea; John Kerry served in Vietnam. Maybe Kerry and Rangel can get together (now that they are part of their self proclaimed "elite") and talk about what it was like to go slumming with the commoners when they were in the military.
I can't believe this guy keeps getting re-elected.
Rep. Rangel's though process and facts are so flawed that I will attempt to systematically address each of his errors in judgement. And I won't even attempt to address the issue of what a forced military vs. a volunteer military would do to our armed services
1) "Elite's in the Military" - Part 1
The last numbers I was able to find had about 5 children of House and Senate Members in the military right now. That does not include children of the Congress who were members in the military, but are now too old or retired. That means that roughly 1% of the Congress has children currently in the military. How many American's are in the military, at all levels of participation? I don't think it is 3 million, but lets say for arguments sake it is 3 million, that is 1% of the population. This means that children of Congressmen and women are members of the military at the same rate as the general population has children in the military.
2) "Elite's in the Military" - Part 2
I do not appreciate Congressmen (like Rep. Rangel) refering to the Congress as THE Elite of America. Based on success, status, income, etc. their are many factors that can place a family in the "elite socio-economic status" in America. So, what about all of the "elite" citizens who have children in college ROTC programs? What about all of the children of current members of the military (as well as the rich) who have children at one of America's prestigious Academies? What about "elite" families who have children that just plainly enlisted? Yet again, another Congressman (a la John Kerry) passively insults members of our military.
3) "Me and my Kids Want to Serve"
Rep. Rangel stated: "I am making a statement against all wars that can not gen[erate] up enough confidence that people are willing to say 'my country is in danger, I want to serve, my kids want to serve'." Rep. Rangel should go back and re-read the history of the American Civilian during American Wars.
According to his flawed belief he would have been against The American Revolution because only about 1/3 of Americans wanted war.
He would have been against the Civil War because over half of the country was opposed to the war for various reasons: they didn't believe in deploying forces on native soil, they just wanted to let the South go, they didn't care, they were proslavery, to name a few.
Rep. Rangel would be remiss if he failed to recognize that most Americans did not want to enter WWII until Pearl Harbor, despite the fact that now it seems like it would have been a good idea to officially get involved earlier.
Most Americans were completely against WWI.
A majority of Americans actually were in favor of the Vietnam War in 1965 (although not in 1970).
So, while popular support is always helpful in war, very rarily is our country 100% (or even close) behind military action. According the Rep. Rangel's criteria America would have never fought a war.
4) "No Better Option"
Rep. Rangel argues that it is unfair that the military recruits in "poorer" parts of town. Well, what are the benefits (other than serving your country) of joining the military? Opportunity. Plain and simple, it is an opportunity for a better life. Why is this suddenly viewed so negatively? Why the backlash? Their are people who would never have had a chance at an education, at a good job, at security or even a chance to better their lives without the military. At no time is anyone forced to join the military. Someone who had a priviledged life has many choices, the military being only one of many. So there is a good chance they will choose something that better suits their desires. Now, someone who grows up to have no options is suddenly given a choice between the status quo and the military - so there is obviously a good chance they will choose to serve. What is wrong with that? Absolutely nothing. To me, it looks like someone chose to improve their life by the only means made available to them. Education, a pay check, health care, etc are not free - so the military does require that when our country needs them that these soldiers and sailors serve. Nevertheless, this is the choice they made.
5) "Recruiting"
What is wrong with recruiting. There are many jobs with many companies that are dead-end jobs. There are underpaying jobs, there are jobs with no benefits, there are jobs with no option to attend school. There are actually signs in McDonald's recruiting teenagers to work for minimum wage with the promise of eventually getting promoted. In other words, some day they could become a manager if they work long and hard and put in enough years. There are companies that sell cigarettes that recruit workers. There are companies of every size, shape and moral make-up that recruit workers. Why can't the military recruit. The military offers "advanced training," an education and the opportunity to enter the job force as former military.
Rep Rangel, who as a side note recently questioned why anyone would ever want to live in Mississippi, obviously has a skewed sense of reality. While he may be anti-Iraq, many people do not agree with him. And while he uses the military as a whipping post for his own political adgenda, yet again the average soldier and sailor is made to feel "less than" so Rangel can prove a point. Rangel served in Korea; John Kerry served in Vietnam. Maybe Kerry and Rangel can get together (now that they are part of their self proclaimed "elite") and talk about what it was like to go slumming with the commoners when they were in the military.
I can't believe this guy keeps getting re-elected.
