Calling Bullshit on the Draft

This weekend I read on op-ed piece by a gentleman, Michael Rooke-Ley, declaring Charlie Rangle's draft was just the thing the US needed to not only shore up it's thinning military enlistment but also as a solution to the problems between the wealthy and poor as well as the blacks and the whites. Maybe it would ease tensions between urban dwellers and suburbanites. But the cost would be on rural Americans' shoulders.

I'm hoping the author of the op-ed isn't either as arrogant, ignorant or dis-hinest as his writing seemed. Using a military draft as a social justice tool is unmitigated bullshit, and I have a feeling those who support this bill, this horrendous idea that would be stained with the blood of rural Americans as well as poor Americans, know that it is.

The bill, as described by Rooke-Ley's op-ed, would re-introduce a draft without a college-deferment provision and effect all men and women between the ages of 18-26. The hopes, as outlined by Rooke-Ley, would be that with this draft the children of the wealthy would be drafted as equally as the poor. However, there is a catch. Those who proclaim themselves as "conscientous objectors" could defer military duty for some other form of "national service". Nothing was necessarily outlined, but I'm guessing programs such as the Peace Corp would be used.

This sounds somewhat reasonable, right? Rooke-Ley even has children who are pre-draft age. Plus, as he mentions, poor black and Latinos are dying in disproportionately high numbers, as are the poor from rural and urban areas. Surely this'll make sure the wealthy white people's children will die on the field of battle as well and maybe make those in power think twice about going to war.

Bullshit. The loophole about other "national service" is the out that will ensure not only rural and small-town Americans continue to be sacrificed for war, but also blacks and Hispanics. In my opinion, much like the bad old days of Tammeny Hall, this nothing but a get votes to get our guy in power ploy. But that's just my take on it. Perhaps they're not trying to be devisive but really care about the under-privileged. If so, why have the opt-out?

Something else to consider, as far as "national service" programs are concerned, if they're set up to work like the Peace Corp we're going to have a problem with them looking for the right profile, if you catch my drift. The ranks of these service programs will be filled with the children of the privilege, the children of those with influence and those who are lucky enough to be in areas where that sort of service isn't seen as "shirking duty". There will be no room left for the others (read blacks, Hispanics and rural whites) even if they chose this route.

And what if a Senator's daughter is sent into the military? What are to expect then? Will it be different than what we saw in Vietnam? A certain Senator's son was drafted. Instead of carrying an M-16 and humping packs through the swamp, Al Gore carried a typewriter and worked as a journalist instead of general infantry. With Rangle's draft, we can expect the same to happen again. Children of the powerful will be safely tucked away from the front while the poor are shoved forward, their sacrifice making our way of life possible.

If Vietnam taught us anything, the wealthy have money to send their children to the safety of another country. The poor couldn't do that then and they can't do it now. I realize the hope behind Rangle's draft is that by having a loophole, er, "national service" opt-out means people won't dodge the draft. However, unless you're going to have written into it that men and women caught moving to a different country to avoid being drafted lose their right to citizenship and won't be legally allowed into the US for an extreme number of years, it's not going to change a damn thing.

Another reason why rural people of all races are going to be the ones sacrificed for the comfort of the rest of us is because for some reason, and this is more anecdotal than taking the time to research numbers, rural people seem more inclined to fly the flag, act more patriotically, speak more highly of their country and as a result will die fighting for their country. It's one thing if that's their choice. However, Rangle's draft will likely result in these people, when drafted, going into the military and dying while their urban and suburban counterparts join some sort of "national service" program.

Not only are we willing to send more rural and poor Americans to die to make people in power on the American left feel good about themselves, we're also willing to sacrifice the quality of our military to do so. There is no denying that the military is spread thin. But filling in the gaps with people who do not want to be there is not the answer. It's the perfect recipe for another situation where the disaffected and uninterested are sent in to be bodies, not warriors. Instead of sending people who'll just go through the paces, it would be far better to send people who are willing to be there.

Charlie Rangle's draft, which, if the article is correct, is bullshit. Rooke-Ley theorizes if the rich have their children being called to fight, there'll be less of a chance that the United States will go to war unnecessarily. Bullshit. When the people in power deem a cause for the US to fight, they'll send troops. Even if the ranks are filled with the privilege (yeah, I'm being optimistic here), they'll send people to fight. Fighting in Vietnam started when Eisenhower was in office and Kennedy and Johnson sent more troops. Clinton sent American soldiers to die in Bosnia because of ethnic cleansing. And then there's Iraq. War is war. Presidents, regardless of party affiliation, will send soldiers to battle. In my opinion, what Rooke-Ley, Rangle and his type are trying to do is clear their consciouses with not only the blood of rural Americans but also their poor, urban counterparts. They want to feel like they're helping solve the skin-color rift by sending people to un-voluntarily die. This won't help solve any problems and more than anything increase tensions.

We don't need the blood of the poor and rural Americans spilled to make these people feel like they have the moral high ground and we don't need to hinder the well-trained men and women whom volunteer for military service either. If you want the moral high ground, you can't just throw bodies at it.