Althouse: If you're hoping to see the popularity of the Democrats decline...

November 20, 2006

If you're hoping to see the popularity of the Democrats decline...

... This must make your heart leap.

ADDED: Tons of commentary -- collected here. I haven't read that much of it, but somehow I feel as if I already have.

32 comments:

KCFleming said...: rhodeymark1, 7M's comment was made tongue-in-cheek.; 11/20/06, 7:31 AM
goesh said...: We are too hedonistic to ever believe in a draft no matter what dire circumstances may befall us. As my uncle Carl used to say, it is better to masturbate than to choke a potential enemy. Rangel isn't hitting on all 8 cylinders that's for sure. The best way to hold our government accountable is to vote rascals out of office. In light of this most recent changing of the guard in Congress, he is very arrogant and pompous to be thinking of legislation for a draft. His ability to sling pork and sucker Black people does not assure him an eternity in office.; 11/20/06, 7:36 AM
MadisonMan said...: Milton Friedman's comments on mercenaries leaps to mind, since I just read about them in his obituaries last week.

Anyway -- if this gets to the floor for a vote, won't it be interesting to see who votes for and against? I would think that more Republicans would support it, but my vote forecasts have been wrong before.; 11/20/06, 7:38 AM
The Drill SGT said...: a couple of comments:

1. The military absolutely doesn't want a draft. The draft army sucked. I was in it.

2. Rangel only raises this issue to harass the GOP and because he WANTS to decrease the Army's effectiveness and deployability

3. This bespeaks volumes about the Dem interest in actually accomplishing anything in the next two years. Yes 7M is correct, it Rangel postured 9 months ago. Hastert called the question and it failed something like 400-3 with Rangel voting against.

4. And as my wife the Colonel notes, "what would they do with all the women?"

5. Having said that, and aware that our hostess thinks it's discriminatory, I'd love the concept of national service requirement for voting or running for Congress. I think that public service is a good thing.; 11/20/06, 7:56 AM
Susan said...: The first time Rangel brought up the issue of the draft, wasn't it because he thought the job of soldiering was too often on the shoulders of the poor? Of course, I don't remember him pushing for the reinstatement of ROTC at Ivy League colleges which would have gone a ways to help that cause.; 11/20/06, 8:02 AM
The Drill SGT said...: Susan said...
The first time Rangel brought up the issue of the draft, wasn't it because he thought the job of soldiering was too often on the shoulders of the poor?

That may be his fantasy, but it is not born out by the demographics: Overall the following is true.

The average recruit is ___ than his year group

better educated
smarter
got into less trouble with the law
more likely from a 2 parent home
from a home with a higher than average income (on average)
more rural
more southern or western

that doesn't describe Rangel's constituents on average; 11/20/06, 8:09 AM
Sloanasaurus said...: Rangel says he wants a draft because then lawmakers will be more hesitant about "sending their kids off to war."

There is little historical evidence that this will be the case - therefore it is pure leftism.

The only real benefit to the draft is to have a citizenry where more people have served, perhaps therefore having a more patriotic country.

Nevertheless, Republicans should use it to stick democrats politically. After all, who is responsible for the draft in the last 100 years - Democrats.; 11/20/06, 8:25 AM
Al Maviva said...: The draft would be a good way to degrade the military's operational capabilities. The weapons systems, strategies and tactics are all built around very complicated skillsets that take years to build. An infantry sergeant with six or seven years in knows how to call naval and air fire, the basics of managing company level logistics, and how to use all the individual weapons in the inventory, ours and the bad guys. The average junior enlisted soldier does run around and play grunt or gun bunny or supply clerk or mechanic, but is basically considered a leadership/management trainee - the rule is everybody should be able to do the job that a person two steps up in rank or duty position can do. And the officer corps... for the most part, the officer corps is better trained at operational management and logistics than any officer corps in history. Only one officer gets to stand at the front with a sword, but it takes thousands of them (and senior staff NCOs) to get the force onto the battlefield in proper formation with the proper equipment and sustainment at the right time.

In short, you can't achieve this level of proficiency with two year draftees, shake 'n' bake draftee NCOs, and an officer corps comprised primarily of 90 day wonders. Have draftees served ably in the past? Yes, but. The major draftee armies the U.S. has fielded in the past generally triumphed as a result of greater manpower and material weight, and due to tactical skill gained through a series of costly disasters. Rangel shouldn't be allowed to push the military back a generation, just to cynically score political points.; 11/20/06, 8:27 AM
Al Maviva said...: And just to drive the point home, Rangel thinks it would make it a lot less likely that we use the military. That's true.

It would also condemn us, upon being attacked, to lose thousands of troops unnecessarily, as our low caliber military learned the hard lessons of warfighting. Sometimes, what looks like the pacifistic way out, only leads to a much greater bloodletting.; 11/20/06, 8:29 AM
KCFleming said...: Rengel here combines colossal stupidity with a pandering cynicism, and then lies about his motivation. He wants to disable the military from fighting, thinking that would cause us to engage in fewer fights. He tries to cover this defeatist proposal with a 'service' sheen, but fails.

What an idiot. Democrats are indeed expert at knowing exactly what to do to ensure American military defeat. It's unclear why anyone would be proud of that.; 11/20/06, 8:37 AM
Steven said...: Rangel is either

A) A simultaneous victim of Alzheimer's and drug addiction;

or

B) A traitor to his country, deliberately trying to wreck the ability of the military to fight because he thinks he can extract some advantage out of it.

Because I can assure you he's been properly informed of the tremendous damage a draft would do to the military.

Either way, the man should be expelled from Congress. Article I, section 5.; 11/20/06, 8:52 AM
ada47 said...: Ah, Charlie Rangel. Best argument I've ever seen for term limits.

We need some discipline, and Madame Speaker just made it clear we ain't gonna get it from her. However, I'd like to remind everyone that the rank and file Dems didn't go her way, and you don't hear anyone other than that identity politics-playin' gasbag calling for a draft, using my kid as a pawn is his game of chicken with the GOP.

Don't be suprised if you see a new Speaker in the near future, someone who has th guts to tell the likes of Charlie Rangle to STFU.; 11/20/06, 9:13 AM
Laura Reynolds said...: Rangel: At least he's not in charge of something important like the Ways and Means Committee.; 11/20/06, 9:30 AM
Anonymous said...: MadisonMan: I'm genuinely surprised by your comment. Can you name a single Republican who supported this idea the last time Rangel brought it up? I can't. Why would any of them think it was a good idea now?; 11/20/06, 9:36 AM
Susan said...: Drill Sgt: Yes, to be clearer, instead of saying "he thought the job of soldiering was too often on the shoulders of the poor", I should have said "he SAID the job of soldiering was too often on the shoulders of the poor even though he knows that's complete nonsense".; 11/20/06, 10:00 AM
Anonymous said...: Holy grandmother's worst nighmare, Nancy!; 11/20/06, 10:18 AM
Timekeeper said...: Madison Man, the same bill was put to a vote in 2004, after the GOP basically told Rangel to "put up or shut up". Only 2 Representatives voted in favor of the bill--Stark, D-CA, and Murtha, D-PA. (The D after their names indicates they are Democrats.) Even Rangel voted against it, based on the flimsy pretext that there was not enough debate, and the Bush administration did not testify (IOW, he didn't have an opportunity to showboat just in time for the 2004 elections.)

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2004-10-05-draft_x.htm; 11/20/06, 10:27 AM
Revenant said...: I enlisted in the Army in 1961 at a time when my basic training company was a "record-breaker" in terms of education as we had an average of a 9th grade education.

Congrats. But that was 45 years ago, and the modern Army is on average better educated than the civilian population. Adding a draft would dumb it down -- and "democratize" it only in the sense of adding a greater number of less-educated, less-responsible, and generally inferior people to it.; 11/20/06, 11:03 AM
Tim said...: "...while our military is superb, I have always had long term and nagging doubts about the advisibility of a standing, professional, all-voluntary service increasingly divorced from the larger civil society (viz: the evolution of the Roman legions during the Republic to their evolution into Praetorianism and militarism during the Empire)."

This, I think, is a legitimate concern, and one I share.

I also appreciate the value of a professional, volunteer military. However, there might be a way to split the baby - institute a draft for the National Guards and Reserves.

The draft could be for a year or so into the active services expressly for the purpose of basic and job training plus a short stint (3 months?) active doing that job or advanced training (albeit segregated from "real" active units who might deploy or be preparing to deploy), then mustering out into Guard or Reserve units to finish a six year tour.

This would offer us surge capability, a military that "looks like America," but still protect the quality and esprit de corps of the professional volunteer services (which would still carry the bulk of the load).

Downsides? Personnel, training and equipment costs would skyrocket; qualitative differences between the professional volunteer units and the conscripted Guard and Reserve units would be glaring (thereby relegating the Guard or Reserves to low-priority, low-"skill", low-risk missions if activated); equipment disparities would be glaring as well.

It would probably compromise the focus of the military's mission, but it might also strengthen the foundation of a Republic in which most every citizen stood a fair chance of being responsible for its defense.

That's clearly not Rangel's point, as he wants to create an Army hostage to everyone's fears so it never deploys - but we'll always have people who think America isn't worth defending.; 11/20/06, 11:16 AM
hdhouse said...: just out of curiousity...where are you going to get the troops.

we have 500,000 total on the ground troops avail. the rotations keep 130,000 plus deployed, just coming back, or getting ready to go to Iraq. thats 78%. so where are you going to get the troops from?

simple question for simple minds. i'm sure you can answer that....well maybe.; 11/20/06, 12:14 PM
Hey said...: Rangel voted against his own resolution as a parliamentary tactic (so he could move to reconsider in the same Congress without having to reintroduce it, see Robert's Rules of Order) and it was supported by 2 people. About the same number that opposed impeaching Alcee Hastings or supported ratifying Kyoto.

If you're going to do a draft, none of this lottery crap, or useless 2 year service requirements. Make EVERYONE serve in the actual military, no matter education, family, health, or beliefs. Then make it at least 6 years, so that people can actually gain skills and be functional, rather than leaving just as they begin to be useful.

That's 8% of the population, or about 24M people. Also known as a large enough force to conquer and occupy most of the world, and definitely sufficient to control the Middle East and Asia. I view this as a good thing, but many may not, and this would require the DOD take something like 25% of GDP.

Arguing for a draft as an attempt to hobble american policy should be construed as adhering to the enemies of the United States. My favourite, and least utilised, section of the Constitution. Time to take out the trash, starting with Congress. Ted Turner and Jane Fonda are also overdue for their trials.; 11/20/06, 12:16 PM
Anonymous said...: hdhouse: What troops? For where? Iraq? Not going to happen.; 11/20/06, 12:31 PM
The Drill SGT said...: hdhouse said...
just out of curiousity...where are you going to get the troops.

we have 500,000 total on the ground troops avail. the rotations keep 130,000 plus deployed, just coming back, or getting ready to go to Iraq. thats 78%. so where are you going to get the troops from?

simple question for simple minds. i'm sure you can answer that....well maybe.

I assume your question is where are we going to get the troops to support Iraq without a draft?

First off, and off the top of my head, I'd say your math is off, both on the supply and demand side. Here's the simple minds math.

demand
that 130k+ includes Army, Marines, and limited USAF and Navy folks.

supply
1. The Active Army is about what you say the total supply is, it is roughly, and these numbers are rough 535k of ACTIVE ARMY
2. add Active Marines, roughly 150k
3. add Guard and Army Reserve, another 700k
4. add USMC reserve? I have no idea, maybe 50k
5. add some limited rotation from USAF and Navy 50k

supply is roughly 1,500K

don't get me wrong, the drain on our active and reserve army troops is huge. my wife has folks in her unit deployed continuously. but it less strenous than your (135k times 3) / 500k factor; 11/20/06, 1:06 PM
hdhouse said...: hey putzes.

the figures come from the armed services subcommitte and were reinforced last week by our good general in charge.

you are forgetting the 20,000 in afghanistan, 38000 in korea, and the numbers in europe and other bases in potential hotspots.

so where are you going to get the troops. simple question. i don't like the draft. i hated it when i was drafable. but tell me where you get the troops.

the pentagon says we don't need a bigger army. the president won't spend for it. where do the bodies come from?

hello all you war loving neo-cons...where do these bodies come from. just answer the question.; 11/20/06, 2:06 PM
The Drill SGT said...: I'm complaining that the Army is too small. So is McCain. The point is that we need more volunteer troops, not draftees. That means a long lead time and bonus increases and frankly the equivalent of the Solomon Act to get recruiters access to HS seniors. The draft is not the best way to solve this problem.

Here is part of a McCain speach from last week.

“Now, I would like to speak briefly about the issue that is uppermost on the minds of Americans. I’ll make another trip to Iraq in the coming weeks, and will speak more extensively on the subject when I return. But, let me make a few observations here.

“Good and patriotic Americans disagree about the wisdom of the original decision to remove Saddam Hussein. I supported it and still do. And clearly the country is divided on the question of how we proceed from here. But I believe all Americans agree on this: to treat this war as a partisan issue for the advantage of either party would dishonor the sacrifices of the young men and women who have fought in it so bravely.

“We have made a great many mistakes in this war, and history will hold us to account for them just as the voters did last week. The situation in Iraq is dire. But I believe victory is still attainable. And I am certain that our defeat there would be a catastrophe, and not only for the United States. But we will not succeed if we no longer have the will to win.

“Americans are tired of Iraq because they are not convinced we can still win there without an intolerable loss of additional lives and resources. I understand that. But in no other time are we more morally obliged to speak the truth to our country, as we best see it, than in a time of war. So, let me say this, without additional combat forces we will not win this war. We can, perhaps, attempt to mitigate somewhat the terrible consequences of our defeat, but even that is an uncertain prospect. We don’t have adequate forces in Iraq to clear and hold insurgent strongholds; to provide security for rebuilding local institutions and economies; to arrest sectarian violence in Baghdad and disarm Sunni and Shia militias; to train the Iraqi Army, and to embed American personnel in weak, and often corrupt Iraqi police units. We need to do all these things if we are to succeed. And we will need more troops to do them.

“They will not be easy to find. The day after 9/11/, we should have begun to increase significantly the size of the Army and Marine Corps. But we did not. So we must turn again to those Americans and their families who have already sacrificed so much in this cause. That is a very hard thing to do. But if we intend to win, then we must.

“It is not fair or easy to look a soldier in the eye and tell him he must shoulder a rifle again and risk his life in a third tour in Iraq. Many of them will not want to. They feel have already suffered far more than the rest of us to win this war. Their families will be even more upset. And they will be right. It is a hard thing to ask of them. But ask it we must – if, and I emphasize if, we have the will to win. As troubling as it is, I can ask a young Marine to go back to Iraq. And he will go, not happily perhaps, but he will go because he and his comrades are the first patriots among us, and he will fight his hardest there for his country to prevail. Of that, I have no doubt. But I can only ask him if I share his commitment to victory.

“What I cannot do is ask him to return to Iraq, to risk life and limb, so that we might delay our defeat for a few months or a year. That is more to ask than patriotism requires. It would not be in the interest of the country, and it surely would be an intolerable sacrifice for so poor an accomplishment. It would be immoral, and I could not do it.; 11/20/06, 3:38 PM
Revenant said...: Take any 30 year period in US history and count the wars compared to those in the 30 years post-1973

The total human cost of *every* military conflict we've had with a volunteer army -- our losses, enemy losses, and civilian losses -- doesn't come close to the cost of any *one* war we fought with a conscript army.

You can afford to piss away conscript troops, because you can always get more. You can't afford to piss away volunteers -- people quit volunteering. Conscript troops also have less reason to care about the rules of war and the welfare of the civilian populace they're stationed around, since they're short-timers, resentful of their position, and uninterested in a career in the military.

So by all means, if -- like most members of the leftie fringe -- you don't give a shit about human rights, human life, or competent national defense, please support a draft. If you do care about those things, don't support a draft. It is that simple.; 11/20/06, 8:16 PM
John Kindley said...: What makes this country good and great is not so much "democracy" but our recognition and legal protection of certain natural rights that each individual person is endowed with by God. Going to war with the intent of trying to kill people you've never met and who have never personally harmed or threatened you is mortally serious business, obviously. In certain situations you might be convinced that doing so is the necessary and/or moral thing to do. But I don't think that a government has a natural right to demand that of any of its citizens through a draft or conscription, nor does any person have a natural duty to comply with such a demand. Taxes are bad enough.; 11/20/06, 11:57 PM
John Kindley said...: Seven Machos,

If a person saw those kinds of things coming, I would think that would be a situation where you might, and should, be convinced that going to war was the necessary and/or moral thing to do, as even many members of the Religious Society of Friends (Quakers) did in WWII. (I'm a Quaker -- present day, not WWII era.) And I think that the idea that a government has a natural power to conscript is certainly more tenable when the country is actually attacked.

Preemptive wars like Vietnam and Irag are quite different. (And I'm not equating these two wars or even saying anything about the merit or advisibility of either of these two wars.)

I guess I just don't trust and love my government (and its "national interests") so much that I'd be willing to kill perfect strangers simply because it orders me to. I'd want more assurance than that that the awful thing I was being ordered to do was necessary, if not "right."

It's a moot point for me, as I've already served and am now too old for any draft (at least, at 37, I hope so).

My comment on taxes was an afterthought and not meant too seriously. Although I think they are outrageously high, I'm not sure any violations of natural rights are implicated.; 11/21/06, 2:15 AM
John Kindley said...: Cedarford,

I think my last post makes clear that I consider conscription to defend against an actual attack on the country (specifically with intent to conquer) as a very different situation, but one that the US has not faced since WWII. (Responding to the 9/11 attacks by invading Afghanistan was arguably a similar situation, but also clearly different.)

Sure, if you were an Aztec and your human-sacrificing chieftain decided he was going to wage a war of aggression against a neighboring tribe and kill and enslave their people, you'd damn well better go and kill and enslave, or face having your heart cut out on the temple summit yourself. But there certainly wasn't any natural moral law or duty compelling your participation -- just necessity.

We've lost that tribal feeling, and it's gone, long gone. That's not a bad thing. Now we're left with this gargantuan superpower state that we identify with on a more abstract and impersonal level, whose "national interests" sometimes seem to take on a life of their own and have a certain distance from the interests of ordinary Americans. This great Leviathan, whose founding ideals I revere, is currently the biggest power player on the world block, and despite the serious threats in the world, does not seem in danger of imminent collapse. The sordidness of the politics that make up the guts of this entity are on display for everyone to see, so is it any wonder that my sense of patriotism and filial feeling does not extend so much to this inhuman machine as it does to the people of quality and honor I know, have known, and would like to know, in my own town and across the country? For the sake of the people, the Union must be preserved, if necessary at just about any cost, but it does not follow that anything and everything the Union wants must be done. So anyone facing a draft remains a moral agent, with a conscience and a decision to be made. Is this war necessary to preserve the very survival of the government upon which the peace of the people depends? The mere fact of having been drafted does not by itself spell out and determine a person's moral duty to comply with the draft.

I'm no doper or self-indulgent shirker. I prefer the language of "duty" to the language of "rights." We have a duty not to kill people without very compelling reasons. I think that duty is reality-based and not "make-believe," as you put it.; 11/21/06, 6:13 AM
Revenant said...: High taxes aren't bad policy, they are a violation of our natural rights

No, *taxes* are a violation of our natural rights, because they involve someone taking our property without our consent. Most people believe this too, even if they don't think coherently enough about politics to realize it -- note, for example, the outcry over the Kelo decision, where governments forced people to sell property so other people could use it "better". How's that different from having your tax money spent on something you don't want? In either case your property is being taken from you without your consent and used in ways you didn't want to use it.

That taxes violate our rights is a given. The question is merely how much of a violation is acceptable, and the general answer is that the violation is acceptable only inasmuch as the alternative would result in a worse violation. Hence most libertarians support taxes for police, the military, et al, but not for wealth redistribution (the vast majority of the federal budget).

And if we end up being dissolved as a country because people don't feel philosophically compelled to fight, and we fall under the authority of some entity that doen't respect all the natural rights we are clearly endowed with, well, them's the breaks.

First of all, "if we don't take away people's rights, they might use them in a bad way" is an un-American attitude. Your mentality is the sort that supports laws against hate speech on the grounds that it can lead to murder and rioting and opposes school vouchers on the grounds that people can't be trusted to make the right educational decisions for their children.

Secondly, the notion that we'd ever need a draft to defend our country is just stupid. We have the most powerful military in the history of the known universe and it is all-volunteer -- and on top of that we've got nukes and a heavily armed citizenry. Nobody's going to conquer us or force us into their empire.

Finally, your argument is simply this: if we don't let an authority take away our rights, we might fall under an authority that doesn't respect our rights. It is easy to see the flaw in that argument, which is that it only makes sense if the loss of rights prevented by a draft is (a)greater than the loss of rights of the draft itself and (b) prevented by a draft. I'd be interested to hear you explain just how such an enemy could exist.; 11/21/06, 12:03 PM
John Kindley said...: Revenant,

I appreciate your observations on taxes and natural rights. It's given me a sounder philosophical basis on which to resent them, or rather, so much of them. Unfortunately, my knowledge of libertarian political philosophy is mostly second-hand, unless reading Harold Browne's "How I Found Freedom in an Unfree World" a couple decades ago counts. Any pointers to must-reads in this area?; 11/21/06, 3:31 PM
Revenant said...: John,

I'm glad you found my remarks helpful. Thanks!

Anyway, off the top of my head:

- Milton Friedman ("Capitalism and Freedom" and "Free to Choose")
- Friedrich Hayek ("The Road to Serfdom" and "The Constitution of Liberty")
- John Stuart Mill ("On Liberty")
- Virginia Postrel ("The Future and Its Enemies")
- Adam Smith ("The Wealth of Nations")
- The Cato Institute has a lot of good material, too.

I cannot, unfortunately, actually recommend any books explicitly about libertarian political philosophy, as I've never found one I thought was well-written.; 11/21/06, 6:14 PM