New York Daily News
November 22, 2006
Pg. 15


The question of whether we need a universal military draft will be important as long as this country is placing thousands of young men and women in harm's way in Iraq. As long as Americans are being shipped off to war, then everyone should be vulnerable, not just those who, because of economic circumstances, are attracted by lucrative enlistment bonuses and educational incentives.
Even before the first bomb was dropped, before the first American casualty, I have opposed the war in Iraq. I continue to believe that decision-makers would never have supported the invasion if more of them had family members in line for deployment.
Those who do the fighting have no choice; when the flag goes up, they salute and follow orders. So far, more than 2,800 have died and 21,000 have been wounded. They are our unrecognized American heroes.
The great majority of people bearing arms for this country in Iraq are from the poorer communities in our inner cities and rural areas, places where enlistment bonuses are up to $40,000 and thousands in educational benefits are very attractive. For people who have college as an option, those incentives - at the risk to one's life - don't mean a thing.
In New York City, the disproportionate burden of service on the poor is dramatic. In 2004, 70% of the volunteers in the city were black or Hispanic, recruited from lower income communities such as East New York, Brooklyn; Long Island City, Queens, and the South Bronx.
The Bush administration, the Pentagon and some Republicans in Congress are considering deploying up to 20,000 more troops to Iraq, above the 141,000 already on the ground. Among the planners are Army Gen. John Abizaid, head of the U.S. Central Command, who has admitted the difficulty of finding additional combat troops for the war without expanding the size of the active-duty military.
If Abizaid is right, increasing troop strength will mean dipping further into the reserves and National Guard units, which are already carrying an unfair burden of multiple deployments. The overstretched active-duty Army is filling the ranks in Iraq with stop-loss orders and extended deployments, and even recalls of the Individual Ready Reserves, active-duty veterans who have time remaining on their military obligations.
These facts lead me to wonder how anyone who supports the war cannot support the military draft, especially when the growing burden on our uniformed troops is obvious, and the unfairness and absence of shared sacrifice in the population cannot be challenged.
If this war is the threat to our national security that the Bush administration insists it is, then the President should issue a call for all Americans to sacrifice for the nation's defense. If there must be a sacrifice, then the burden must be shared fairly.
That is why I intend to reintroduce legislation to reinstate the military draft, making men and women up to age 42 eligible for service, with no exemptions beyond health or reasons of conscience. I believe it is immoral for those who insist on continuing the conflict in Iraq, and placing war on the table in Iran and North Korea, to do so only at the risk of other people's children.
Rangel (D-Manhattan) is incoming chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee.

He might be crazy but he is clever. He doesn't want to reintroduce the draft. He is betting on marrying the lingering distaste of the draft with opposition to the war. He's betting that people's heartfelt support for the war is less then their hatred of the concept of the draft. Very shrewd political move. It is however commiting the logical fallacy of the false dichotomy.

hit the nail on the head bulldogg.

i support a draft on the soul fact that if a nation is at war and the president or prime minister truely believes and say's ita such a big deal than the burdon shopuld be shared. it might make that politition think twice before going to war...or it might do some good.