First Nancy Pelosi fractures her party’s unity by supporting an ethically-challenged conservative whose only qualification for Majority Leader is his stance on Iraq. Now, Rep. Charles Rangel (D-NY) plans to submit legislation to reinstate the draft. And not just for people aged 18 to 26, mind you, as he called for in 2003 with support from Pelosi’s Murtha―a proposal he voted against himself―but for people between the ages of 18 to 42. And why? To deter politicians from launching new wars.
Notwithstanding his cryptic logic, or the fact Harlem voters sent him back to the House to extract their kids from harm’s way, Rep. Rangel continued his rant. “If we’re going to challenge Iran and…North Korea…and send more troops to Iraq, we can’t do that without a draft.” Even Lindsey Graham, the conservative senator from South Carolina who holds a colonel’s rank in the Reserves, disagreed. “I think we can do this with an all-voluntary Army…and if we can't…we'll look for some other option.” But Rangel continued undaunted. This morning, he expanded his inference that Congress will back a proposal for more troops in Iraq by declaring his support for Sen. John McCain, whose plan calls for an “overwhelming” number of troops for the region.
Our question is this: Is this the same Charlie Rangel who voted against our intervention in Iraq and stated after the Iraq elections that Americans “don’t want their children to die for other people’s freedom”? If so, perhaps he should review the history of public sentiment toward conscription before sinking his party two months before taking their oaths.
At the start of the Civil War, conscription resulted in wild demonstrations throughout the North and turned especially violent in New York where 50,000 people lit fires and terrorized neighborhoods in what came to be known as the New York Draft Riots. Though many factors contributed to the melees, protesters were particularly miffed at the fact that people of means could opt out of the draft by paying a “commutation fee.” This perception still haunts us today, exacerbated by the antics of George Bush going AWOL without reprisal.
When President Wilson revived the draft in 1917, immigrant and socialist communities in the Northeast responded with widespread resistance. Violence erupted in the South as well, where rural whites and poverty-stricken blacks took matters into their own hands. In addition, nearly 2,000 conscientious objectors refused to cooperate in any way. John Whiteclaim Chambers, in his well-researched chronicle of the draft during World War I, “To Raise An Army”, estimates that between 2.4 and 3.6 million men avoided the draft in 1917 by refusing to register, countering long-held beliefs in the war’s popularity. His estimates explain the imperative Congress felt when it passed the Espionage Act that same year, expanding the powers of Justice to prosecute draft resisters and citizens who failed to register.
The first peacetime conscription was instituted in 1940 with the establishment of the Selective Service Training Act. At that time, men were inducted into the army between the ages of 21 and 35 and could only serve in the Western Hemisphere or U.S. possessions or territories, a caveat Mr. Rangel might consider if his goal is to curb U.S. adventurism. Even during World War II, our most popular war by far, over 12,000 conscientious objectors refused to serve and were sent to Civilian Public Service camps throughout the United States.
Following the "War to End All Wars," Congress extended the draft, then let it expire, then revived it in response to the Cold War. When hostilities broke out in Korea―hostilities in which Mr. Rangel participated―Congress extended the draft again by way of The Universal Military Training and Service Act. It was Barry Goldwater, of all people, who proposed ending conscription, the quintessential hawk. But when Kennedy was assassinated in 1963, and our destiny in Vietnam all but assured, the draft was extended indefinitely.
Thus began the most divisive and unified draft resistance movement in U.S. history. Thousands took to the streets. Thousands more burned their draft cards or refused to register. An untold number fled to Canada. Some even severed their fingers or toes. In November, 1969, a quarter of a million people swarmed the Capitol to protest the draft and the war it supported. In response, an all-volunteer army was instituted in 1973. That volunteer army continues to this day.
If Rep. Rangel thinks an increase in troop levels will lessen the chance of military adventures, we beg to differ. Massive troop expansions, on the scale he proposes, would only embolden the Executive branch. And with a third of our population overseas, employers would increasingly turn to undocumented workers to fill their positions (not that they need much prodding). We would therefore find ourselves in the untenable position of having citizens dying in far-off lands for non-citizens who’ve taken their jobs.
If a manager can’t manage with finite resources he’s not fit to manage. And if our leaders can’t win their unwanted wars with the current all-volunteer army, perhaps they should try diplomacy. The draft has been, and always will be, political suicide for anyone who supports it. One can only hope Rep. Rangel's fellow Democrats will take their cues from the electorate.
Andrea Hackett is an freelance journalist, founder of the Las Vegas Dancers Alliance in Nevada, and editor of the Populist Review. She may be contacted at andreahackett@cox.net
Charlie Rangel can say whatever pops into his head because he has no effective opposition in his Harlem/Upper West Side district.
He could probably be found with the live boy or dead girl of cliché and still get reelected.
A footnote on the draft riots--they were also motivated by fear among the largely Irish rioters of wage competition from free blacks, and accompanied by much violence against them.
Posted by: Grumpy Old Man | November 23, 2006 at 06:13 AM