U.S. Rep. Charlie Rangel, D-N.Y., is not insane. His proposal to reinstate the draft has been met with a virulent response from the left and the right, and the outrage is understandable. However, most bewildered critics and Americans hearing about it on the news don’t have any more than an elementary understanding of Rangel’s proposal. Offering an idea this controversial is meant to trigger a larger debate: How can we sustain our military in a long-term struggle against pseudo-Islamic extremism and the philosophy of terror?
A mandatory draft would mean a dramatic cultural change for our nation. I’m not sold on the idea, but it’s worth serious thought. Further, Mr. Rangel is not suggesting that everyone of age should be shipped off to war. “Young people (would) commit themselves to a couple of years in service to this great republic, whether it’s our seaports, our airports, in schools (or) in hospitals,” he said in an appearance on CBS’s “Face the Nation.” He added that service would come with a promise of educational benefits.
Note the last paragraph, "a couple of years in service to this great republic, whether it’s our seaports, our airports, in schools (or) in hospitals". The media is not covering this aspect of the proposal. I think it's a worthy idea in itself, but even if only to spark debate about military service.
As far as politics go, it seems that politicians just want to say they're opposed to the draft because it's a political hot potato issue they don't want to associate with.
More.
No comments:
Post a Comment