It was no surprise to your author when he read an AP article detailing the plans of Democrat Congressman Charlie Rangel of New York to introduce a bill that would rollback the volunteer armed forces and re-implement the draft. Rangel, who will chair the House’ powerful Ways and Means Committee, believes having a draft would deter the US and their involvement in wars. Nothing could further from the truth and Congressman Rangel, an Army veteran, should be ashamed of himself.
Rangel and his left leaning ilk are of the mindset that international peace is achieved by signing agreements, treaties and holding hands with other nations. This is a failed idea and a dangerous assumption about our global neighbors. Mr. Rangel and others would be best advised to review what brought Adolph Hitler to the forefront as a major worldwide threat.
Hitler pressured the Austria to unify with Germany with his view that the country really belonged to the Germans. He then went into Czechoslovakia and proclaimed the German speaking area of Sudetenland as his own. He then agreed to cease all advancement by signing the Munich Accords, which earned him the distinction of Time Magazine ‘Man of the Year’ and making him a popular figure. In less than a year Hitler had scrapped the idea and taken over parts of Prague. Because Hitler absolutely refused to back down and Britain’s inability to agree on alliance with the USSR to combat him, Europe nearly went down to the Nazi Party and the Third Reich. The only action to stop Hitler was the total annihilation led by US, Canada, the United Kingdom and the Soviet Union. At the end of the day Hitler knew treaties and handshaking was symbol of foolish weakness. He knew world peace would only be achieved if he had something to lose. In other words when nations feel the urge to advance or start problems in the name of whatever, they would think twice if they knew another country would come to the call and bring military action. This answers the first part of Rangel’s logic and shows the reader just how flawed the Congressman is in his thinking.
The second part of his desires to bring back the draft is rooted in an age old liberal assumption that members of the military are from poor, ghetto backgrounds. They often relegate Hispanic and Black members of our society as being disenfranchised minorities. When liberals speak of minorities they don’t mean all minorities, they forget Asians and members from Middle East backgrounds. No the only minorities they recognize are Black, Hispanic, women and homosexuals. The liberals enjoying decrying racism at a drop of the hat when it serves to gain a popular edge over their opponents but when it serves to boost their mantra will quickly exploit it.
This conspiracy also popped up in Michael Moore’s critically acclaimed lie disguised as a documentary known as Fahrenheit 911. In the film Moore pitches this idea that nearly all Armed Services recruits come out of ghettos. Since Moore didn’t use facts in his supposed research allow your author to cite a recent Heritage Foundation report, according the findings, which were released in October of this year, the background, race and education factors differ that from what the left claims. The first being that a majority of recruits came from impoverished ghetto conditions. This is false. According to their report a vast majority of the recruits were from middle-class backgrounds with an average income of $41,000. In reference to Democrat Senator John Kerry from Massachusetts who implied in a ‘botched’ joke, that no one found humorous, the average military recruit hadn’t studied enough. The good Senator, who was denied a deferment to study in Paris and found himself in the Vietnam War, suggested the poor and those not academically motivated were sent to fight in Iraq. Given his choice upper class background and Ivey League education your author doubts he could relate to anyone outside of his safe sphere of like-minded figures. Well 98% of recruits are high school graduates or hold the equivalency. When it comes to active duty officers, 92% of them must really be dumb because they hold at least a bachelor’s degree and are enlisted in the Armed Services. As it relates to race, well forget the minorities, what about the Caucasians? According to the report 73% of Armed Services are white! As it relates to hometowns a significant portion of the enlisted men and women hail from Montana, Texas, Wyoming, Alaska and Oklahoma, the reader would be hard-pressed to find some grimy ghetto on par with South Boston or central Bronx in these states.
So if this is the case then what is behind Rangel and the left’s message? Well ignoring the facts that your author laid out, that’s okay the left doesn’t bother with such moot topics as facts, it must be the political message. This is just another way of saying ‘cut and run’, bail out or jump from the ship, instead let us use the military to hand out bags of rice while acting under the UN in another failed policy attempt because with a draft will be less likely to send troops to war. Now forgetting the outright lies previously discussed, this is the most shameful portion of their message and one that they won’t answer. Remember a liberal will mold their logic to fit their belief system. It will twist and turn in the wind. Rangel and others are using the military as a tool to advance their agenda while veiling it by saying they are making an equal playing field. This is very similar to what the American public watched with Kerry’s failed Presidential campaign and his constant reference to his military medals. It was beneficial when Senator Kerry thought he could use it garner some votes from veterans. In the past his voting record, more recently with his so called ‘joke’, his actions speak differently.
When a left leaning liberal says they are pro-military the reader should hold their ears so they won’t suffer from fools. This statement of military support is often followed by criticism, no hatred, for the leader, at least in our current times. How can one be for the team because they are brave, well trained, discipline and committed but spit on the top leadership? How can they say this especially during a time of war? This is akin to being a rabid Miami Dolphins fan but despising Coach Don Shula. Coach Shula was at the top of the Dolphins’ program for 25 years and brought home only one Super Bowl Championship. With all due respect the American citizenry doesn’t set military or international policy. Now they may wish to vote out the leaders that construct such policy they agree with but no matter what popular opinion polls state they are not as influential as the ones who administer them would like to think. Often times in politics, as well as life, the ones not popular, avoiding conventional thinking, will be revered by writers and museum curators. They are often called pioneers, brave or ingenious for their ability to look beyond the obvious. Ironically enough the same ones doling out accolades towards their memory are often the same ones that criticized them during the time relevancy. A 2002 BBC poll labeled Winston Churchill the greatest Briton of all time. For all of his popularity, Churchill was not a popular man after World War II when he attempted to maintain the United Kingdom’s flag in all parts of the globe while popular thinking of the day was suggesting a retreat and restructuring of priorities.
It should be noted that the new Congress has already stated they won’t take Rangel up on his proposed bill. This doesn’t seem to bother the big media machine as they are now going into hyper mode questioning such implications on our society and America’s support for this war. Because let’s be honest it is about the Iraq War exclusively with the underlying attempt to undermine our Armed Services members and President Bush’s Administration. Contrary to current popular thinking there has never been a ‘popular war’ as the press suggests when they label Iraq as being the opposite. It should also be considered that in 2003 Congressman Rangel introduced similar legislation as it relates to the draft. The bill was defeated with a 402-2 vote.
When the left offers a solution the reader should ask ‘what will I give up’. In the case of Rangel and others as it relates to the draft the answer should be ‘giving up on their assurance to properly lead’. Many of Rangel’s supporters and disciples, as such with their agreement with his left leaning tendencies, are the same ones that criticized the returning Vietnam Veteran when our country did employ the draft. They are the ones that pressured to stop such policy. Now they are taking pro side on the issue. A bit confusing? It shouldn’t be, for their thought process and policymakers are founded on conventional thinking, governing critical issues by popularity polls. The problem with such thinking is that, well, it is popular and popularity is often rooted in fads not proven tradition. In the case of fads, they come and go. The same cannot be said for their impact when they are used to dictate national policy.
