I like the idea of Rangel pushing a draft into the headlines. But I don't think just calling for a draft now helps solve future problems. Nor do I think we should have a draft in times of peace, but a more permanent law to cover those future scenarios.
First, let's put to rest the evil myth of the "all volunteer" military fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Our current fighting force is full of troops who have been kept under the "Stop Loss" program. This simply means that you can't get out of the military even after your comittment has ended. There are literally thousands of soldiers fighting overseas who are in year 6 or 7 of their 4 year enlistments. Plus, of course, there are many reservists and National Guard members doing their 3rd tours overseas. These people signed up for one weekend a month, and to be activated in a time of national emergency (or so they thought). We have even activated soldiers who had been out of the military completely.
None of these groups are "volunteers" for active duty. They are being forced into it outside of what they signed up for. If your employer locked you into your store, office or factory and forced you to work double hours for no extra pay, would you be "volunteering" for that? (Yes, I know that extensions and activation are risks accepted by our soldiers, but that doesn't mean they have "volunteered" for more than they signed up for.)
And this doesn't even address the troops who signed up with no idea that they would be sent to a war, especially one based on a lie. Calling this "volunteering" for combat is bogus, at best.
As those of you who read my diary on John Kerry know, I lost my little brother Russ this year in Afghanistan. It's a loss and a sorrow I will always have to live with, and it affects me constantly. But that is not the reason for my rant. This is something I've believed in since the beginning of the Iraq war.
That said, Russ's case is instructive. He signed up for the Army at the age of 17, in 1999. Obviously, he had no idea what was coming. He served a 1-year tour in Korea, and later a 1-year tour in Iraq. At that point, his contract was fulfilled. But he knew he wouldn't be allowed out of service. In fact, he (and others) were told that, if he didn't re-enlist, he would be extended and immediately sent to another unit that was going back to Iraq in a matter of weeks. Given that option, he chose to re-up, choose which unit he would go to, and get an enlistment bonus. Why not, if you're not going to get out anyway? Then, of course, he was sent to Afghanistan, where he was killed. I try to be grateful for the year we had with him after his re-enlistment, and before his deployment, which we might not have otherwise if he hadn't re-upped.
This is just one example of the thousands out there of people we disingenuously refer to as part of our "volunteer" military.
So, here's a law I propose our new Congress enact: From here on, whenever there is an operation that requires Stop Loss of more than 6 months, activation of Reservists, overseas deployments for National Guard members, or re-activation of former soldiers, we must first institute a draft. This draft would have to consist of a random lottery of anyone 18-30. No student or marraige deferments. Those found unfit medically would still be sent to perform whatever non-combat/non-military support they could. In other words, no one selected, male or female, would be allowed out of some kind of comittment. So, every one of the men and women in power making the decision to send our young into harm's way, and every member of the public who can and should hold them accountable, will know that their own loved ones and friends could just as easily be sent into action.
This, I believe, would put an end to the chickenhawks, Young Republican punks and rednecks who support any and all wars under the guise of some kind of phony machismo, while doing nothing to serve thier country themselves. The way I laid out the proposal keeps this from applying to any small operation (ie. Panama, Grenada, etc.), which can be completed in a short period of time.
This would help ensure that any future wars would be done for the right reasons, and everyone would get involved in finding out the real motivations and rationale for said war.
Meanwhile, let's write into this law a number of benefits our troops deserve. Increasing pay and GI Bill benefits is always a good start. Increasing combat pay should also be a no-brainer. Currently, they get about $225 a month for being sent into combat, while we are dumping tens of billions into the hands of the Halliburtons of the world. How about we double the pay of any soldier in combat? That would actually be worth something.
Soldiers disabled to a certain level are given medical benefits for life, but this doesn't cover dependents, making it practically useless for many (I know, because I have a 30% disability, but don't bother with it, because I need to keep insurance from work to cover my daughter). Allowing Reserve and Guard members to retire at 55, like other government employees. Extending full medical to any soldier who fought for his country for a certain number of years after enlistment, at least as long as they were in college under the GI Bill. I'm sure there are many other good ideas. And restoring the Veterans' funding cut by Bush and Co. should also be a no-brainer.
This all, to me, is what supporting our troops is all about. And this would be a real "Patriot Act".