The Omega Letter Intelligence Digest

Vol: 32 Issue: 2 - Sunday, May 02, 2004

Children of the State?
by Jack Kinsella

A bill co-sponsored by NY Democrat Charlie Rangel and Nebraska  Republican
Chuck Hagel seeks to reinstate the draft that was phased out following the
Vietnam War in favor of the current, all-volunteer military force.

In a New York Times Op-Ed of Dec. 31, 2002, NY Democrat Charlie Rangel
said, "If we are going to send our children to war, the governing
principle must be that of shared sacrifice."

Nebraska's Chuck Hegel echoed Rangel's sentiments, asking rhetorically,
"Why shouldn't we ask all of our citizens to bear some responsibility and
pay some price?"

Hagel argues that conscription would force "our citizens to understand the
intensity and depth of challenges we face."

Rangel likewise claimed the U.S. would be less likely to go to war if
soldiers were drafted rather than adequately paid.

Hagel says we need a draft so "the privileged, the rich," as well as the
less affluent bear the burden of fighting wars.

Rangel's bill would require "that all young persons in the United States,
including women, perform a period of military service or a period of
civilian service in furtherance of the national defense and homeland
security, and for other purposes."

In other words, the bill mandates a period of involuntary servitude for a
select group of young people COMPELLED to do whatever the government
decides.
 
 

Assessment:

It always fascinates me to hear terms like 'our children' as if they were
somehow the property of the state to do with as 'we' will.  Following that
line of reasoning, wars are declared by their parents -- why don't THEY go
fight them?

Charley Rangel won't have to worry about being drafted into the military
just as he is beginning the toughest phase of any person's life -- the
transistion from adolescent to adult.  Chuck Hegel has had thirty years or
more to make the adjustment -- maybe he forgot what it was like.

It's hard to be eighteen.

It is even harder if, in addition to all the other burdens that come with
that tender age, one has to consider being impressed into involuntary
servitude -- UNNECESSARY involuntary servitute -- by virtue of no other
criteria than being eighteen?

The Pentagon isn't asking for more troops.  Most military units are
meeting their recruiting and re-enlistment quotas. There is no need to
force unwilling Americans to 'share' the burden -- especially since the
burden is imposed exclusively on America's youth.

Rangel's bill is co-sponsored by Democratic Reps. Neil Abercrombie of
Hawaii, Corrine Brown of Florida, William Clay of Missouri, John Conyers
Jr. of Michigan, Elijah Cummings of Maryland, Alcee Hastings of Florida,
John Lewis of Georgia, Sheila Jackson Lee of Texas, Jim McDermott of
Washington state, James Moran of Virginia, Pete Stark of California, Nydia
Velazquez of New York and Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton of the District
of Columbia.

Isn't it fascinating that it is the most liberal wing of the Congress that
wants to reimpose what they fought so bitterly against during the Vietnam
War? Why would anybody want to dismember America's professional force of
volunteers in favor of inducting and training unwilling warriors?

It reveals the core principles behind liberal thinking -- the use of class
warfare to promote collectivism.   Liberals expect the state to meet their
every need.  It is an interesting irony that the loudest liberal
instigators of class warfare are themselves rich -- something that
embarrasses them ALMOST enough for them to give away all their money.
Almost.

Listen to Ted Kennedy, John Kerry,  Charley Rangel, etc., etc., as they
rail against 'tax cuts for the rich' and ensuring 'the rich' share the
burden of military service, as if, in a VOLUNTEER military, somehow, they
don't.

Even as a youth, John Kerry was rich.  So was John Kennedy.  Pat Tillman
walked AWAY from riches.   Bill Clinton, on the other hand, was poor.
(Who doesn't fit in the above group of veterans?)

Because being embarrassed about being rich isn't quite enough for liberals
to give away their own money,  they salve their consciences by giving away
yours. All the while convincing you that the rich guys are getting a free
ride on your dime.

This same principle of class warfare and collectivism is behind the push
to reinstate the draft.

America doesn't need the draft to maintain its military readiness -- in
fact,  conscription would drive military readiness down.  By the time a
draftee was adequately trained to serve in a 21st century, highly
technical military force, his two years would be up.

The agenda isn't to 'share the burden' among rich and poor. It is to
create a new dragon for them to slay down the road. If they can
successfully push through a new conscription, they will automatically
create an army of anti-warriors out of the unwilling draftees, their
families and their friends.

Then guys like Charley Rangel and John Kerry can join hands, marching at
the front of a column of anti-war demonstrators, singing 'Kumbaya' and
chanting 'I have a dream' and tapping into America's national discontent
to get votes -- you know, just like in the old days.

A successful and victorious America doesn't need liberals to protect them.
Which is why they want to bring back the draft, end the war, talk down any
economic recovery and write op-ed columns in the New York Times about
American 'arrogance' for not surrendering US national interests to the UN.

"The fool foldeth his hands together, and eateth his own flesh."
(Ecclesiastes  4:5)