The land of the free makes for a poor garrison state. But some would rather the latter in place of the former.

Rep. Charles Rangel, the incoming chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, vows to reintroduce legislation reintroducing a draft. He says the measure would make it harder for presidents to start unnecessary wars. Maybe so. But so would Congress reasserting its power to declare war. Congress's control of financing such operations, too, can act as a curb on reckless presidents. Those constitutional safeguards against an out-of-control executive don't seem to interest Rangel.

Why the draft? Conscription is popular with statists. As distant as it seems now, the draft was a reality faced by American males for about a third of the twentieth century. Woodrow Wilson forced young men into the military in World War I, and Franklin Roosevelt, when America was "neutral" in 1940, instituted the draft again. Harry Truman, again in peacetime, brought back conscription in 1948. It stayed with America until 1973, when Richard Nixon did away with the draft, and the self-centered protestors who evaporated once it was gone. Is it Charlie Rangel's hope to bring back the demonstrators with the draft?

Freedom and force don't mix. If not for this reason, then a draft should be opposed for the deleterious effects it would have upon the armed forces.

One of the best things about being in the military, unlike say high school, was that everyone wanted to be there. Or, perhaps more accurately, everyone who was there made a conscious decision to sign up. Shirkers who went AWOL feared the military tracking them down and forcing them to live up to their committment. I did too. Who wants to engage in such a dangerous job with irresponsible people whose heads are somewhere else? Let them go. Punishing them in that way would be punishing us. I often joked with other Marines what the Corps would be like if random civilians were forced to join. Parris Island isn't magic. It can only transform so many blue-haired delinquents into U.S. Marines. There was a sense that we had it better in the all-volunteer force of the 1990s than our Marine ancestors had it in the forced force of the 1960s.

Rangel's dream, thankfully, is a pipe dream. But even pipe dreams sometimes get realized. It's important that even when a bad argument doesn't pose an immediate threat that it's rebutted before it does. If not for the freedom of American men, then for the character of the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marines should America embrace its all-volunteer armed forces.

I agree.

The draft is the wrong way to go.

I wish the armed forces would spend more on salaries though and less on unneeded weapons systems.

One interesting note though.

A draft would be the only way Iraq- at this point- is winnable.

The biggest problem in Iraq right now is the severe lack of peacekeeping troops. We have about 60,000, we need about 3 million to reach the ratios that worked for us in Germany and Japan after the war.

They don't need to be highly trained. They don't need to have high morale. They just need to be able to point, shoot, and walk around.

If we drafted 3 million men into the army, we could win this thing.

Short of that, we're just delaying defeat.

Rangel loves this class warfare crap.

Pick a service, take a challenge, set yourself apart. Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines. What a great place, it's a great place TO START!

Yes we need the draft. victory in iraq was lost when GW. did not kill al sader, what ever that scumbags name is. see he started to worry about public and world opinion. bad mistake. and so the war is being fought halfazz'd . and now we have soldiers going back 4 or 5 times. WRONG!
he should have asked congress after 9-11 for the draft. i hear that the brass say they dont want it, but too bad. you tell me what war the US. fought with a all vol. military , ciil war, ww2, ww1, yea thats right they all had daftees. and they were needed. just like now. but the rest of country is happy to let 10 per. of the population to do the work. as long as the war doesnt interfere with your daily lives ie gas, football , booze, porn, parties, what ever, this war on muslim scumbags is doomed

I agree that we should not have soldiers going back 4 and 5 times. In fact, I'll do you one better and say we should not have soldiers going back at all.

Bottom line is we don't need a draft as our forces should be defensive and we have plenty of volunteers for a solid defensive force.

And we'd have more if we pulled that 30K plus strong force off of the North and South Korean border. Help the South, fortify Japan and get the hell out of there as well.

Ironic: we can post troops at a border of a country that is no physical threat to us, enough so to make it airtight, but we can't do anything about a border that impacts this country every day. Amazin'.

We probably do need a draft, if we are going to establish security in Iraq. The only way the American public might support a draft would be if Iran or its terrorist proxies attack the American homeland.

Since we don't have enough troops in Iraq and a draft will not be forthcoming, for better or worse we will be withdrawing in masse from Iraq very soon. Without a massive increase in the size of the military the current force structure in Iraq can only be maintained for another year and half or so.

Asdf

You expressed my sentiments exactly. We should privately set a date certain for our complete withdrawl of military forces from South Korea and Japan with the leaders of those countries. We should encourage them to strengthen their militaries and to develop their own nuclear arsenals. Soth Korea and Japan could then serve as a check on Russia and China. The troops that are no longer needed in South Korea and Japan could be used to secure the US border with Mexico. Since many of the citizens of South Korea and Japan want American troops out of their lands anyway, this proposal would be a win all the way around.