I receive a weekly e-newsletter from my local Congressman, John J. Duncan, Jr. I found today's edition very interesting, so I thought I'd share it with you:
The possibility of reinstating the military draft has received tremendous attention in recent days. Because many conflicting statements about this issue have been reported, I feel it is important to clarify the status of this issue.
President Bush has repeatedly denounced any plan for reinstating the draft. In fact, the Republican Party platform adopted in New York only weeks ago states that the G.O.P. “created the all-volunteer force and opposes reinstitution of the draft, whether directly or through compulsory national service.”
Secretary of State Colin Powell, a decorated veteran and former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has joined the President in dismissing any claim the current administration is eyeing a return to conscripted service.
The most powerful denunciation of the draft, however, has been levied by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. Appearing before the Senate Armed Services Committee September 23, Secretary Rumsfeld stated: “I’m not supposed to get into politics, but it is absolutely false that anyone in this administration is considering reinstating the draft. That is nonsense.”
He later continued: “We are not having trouble maintaining a force of volunteers. Every single person’s a volunteer. We do not need to use compulsion to get people to come in the armed services. We’ve got an ample number of talented, skillful, courageous, dedicated young men and women willing to serve.”
The call for instituting a draft is being led by some of the most liberal members of the entire Congress. Rep. Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.) introduced H.R. 163, the Universal National Service Act, January 7, 2003 – the first day of the 108th Congress.
Rep. Rangel’s bill would have required every citizen between the ages of 18 and 26 to fulfill two years of service to either the military or a civilian agency promoting national defense.
Not one Republican House leader ever endorsed the idea. In fact, only 14 of the House’s 435 members elected to cosponsor the act. All are among most the most liberal thinkers in Congress.
Last week the House voted on Rep. Rangel’s proposal. In the end, H.R. 163 garnered only two supporters, neither of whom is Republican, with 402 members opposed. Even Rep. Rangel failed to vote for his own bill.
Sen. Fritz Hollings (D-S.C.) introduced identical legislation in the Senate. Not one other senator has signaled support for the proposal by serving as a cosponsor.
The Senate Republican leadership scheduled no hearings for the measure, and no Republican leader from the body has shown any support for establishing a draft. Sen. Hollings’ bill will die without being considered when the 108th Congress adjourns in a few weeks.
An e-mail circulating throughout the country and apparently targeting college campuses has insinuated that the Selective Service recently received $28 million “to prepare for a military draft.” Nothing could be more misleading.
Congress provided $26.3 million for this year’s entire Selective Service budget. The agency’s primary responsibility for the last quarter century has been overseeing the mandatory registration of young men between the ages of 18 and 25, a benign process that in no way increases the likelihood of a draft but still requires funding.
As is nearly always true, I support President Bush’s position on this matter. I have always opposed the draft because I do not believe the federal government should ever forcibly employ any citizen unless no reasonable alternative can be found, even for national defense. Ours is a nation founded on the principle of liberty, and we cannot surrender our individual freedom to the government without great risk.
President Bush and Congress have made great strides in recent years to increase military pay and provide additional benefits to our troops. Military service is one of the most honorable ways to serve our country, but we can successfully instill national pride in young people without mandating a stint in the armed services.
I sincerely hope no candidate will seize on fear to boost his electoral hopes in November. This is an important election that should be decided by the honest debate of serious issues. It is the very least all Americans deserve.
I've said before that I'm staunchly against the draft, for reasons of freedom. So we should chuck the Selective Service. Now I'm as skeptical of government as all of you, but reviving the draft would be hard for the Bush Administration (My apologies to the conspiratorialists). The President is on record bluntly decrying the draft, as are several officials who work for him. Plus, the movement clearly has no serious support in the House or the Senate, except among the lunatic fringe. Isn't it interesting that Kerry accuses Bush of plans for its reinstitution, yet its only supporters are Democrats?
No comments:
Post a Comment