31 December 2002
"Bring Back the Draft," by Representative Charles Rangel
(The New York Times 12/31/02 op-ed) (620)
(This byliner by Charles B. Rangel, a Democrat, who is a
Representative from New York, is in the public domain. No
republication restrictions.)
(begin byliner)
Bring Back the Draft
By Charles B. Rangel
Washington -- President Bush and his administration have declared a
war against terrorism that may soon involve sending thousands of
American troops into combat in Iraq. I voted against the Congressional
resolution giving the president authority to carry out this war -- an
engagement that would dwarf our military efforts to find Osama bin
Laden and bring him to justice.
But as a combat veteran of the Korean conflict, I believe that if we
are going to send our children to war, the governing principle must be
that of shared sacrifice. Throughout much of our history, Americans
have been asked to shoulder the burden of war equally.
That's why I will ask Congress next week to consider and support
legislation I will introduce to resume the military draft.
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.
There is no doubt that going to war against Iraq will severely strain
military resources already burdened by a growing number of
obligations. There are daunting challenges facing the 1.4 million men
and women in active military service and those in our National Guard
and Reserve. The Pentagon has said that up to 250,000 troops may be
mobilized for the invasion of Iraq. An additional 265,000 members of
the National Guard and Reserve, roughly as many as were called up
during the Persian Gulf War in 1991, may also be activated.
Already, we have long-term troop commitments in Europe and the
Pacific, with an estimated 116,000 troops in Europe, 90,000 in the
Pacific (nearly 40,000 in Japan and 38,000 in Korea) and additional
troop commitments to operations in Afghanistan, Bosnia, Kosovo and
elsewhere. There are also military trainers in countries across the
world, including the Philippines, Colombia and Yemen.
We can expect the evolving global war on terrorism to drain our
military resources even more, stretching them to the limit.
The administration has yet to address the question of whether our
military is of sufficient strength and size to meet present and future
commitments. Those who would lead us into war have the obligation to
support an all-out mobilization of Americans for the war effort,
including mandatory national service that asks something of us all.
(Charles B. Rangel, a Democrat, is a representative from New York.)
(end byliner)
(Distributed by the Office of International Information Programs, U.S.
Department of State. Web site: http://usinfo.state.gov)
|
NEWSLETTER
|
|
Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list
|
|
|
