The 'Anti-War' Draft

by Angelo Mike 

Exclusive to STR

November 29, 2006

Charlie Rangel is deranged, an idiot, and a despicable politician (admittedly, whenever I mention a despicable politician, I give people free range to take their pick as to whom I’m referring).  

Attempted slave driver and Congressman Charlie Rangel has a plan which manages to somehow do the impossible: to do one thing and that thing’s very opposite.  

Though he’s been proposing this for a while, recently he’s getting attention in the news again for calling for a draft for all men and women between ages 18 and 42 in order to simultaneously prepare us for war with North Korea and Iran, and to prevent bad wars like that with Iraq (as opposed to good wars, like World War II).

That’s right, he’s against the Iraq war. But he’s still calling for a draft, citing several reasons, some of which are opposed to each other: It will more equally spread the burden of fighting war to all Americans, especially the rich, white, and privileged, thus making war more fair; it will reduce the possibility of politicians starting new wars because they know their children may have to fight it; and a draft will give us the troop levels to fight wars with North Korea and Iran should it become necessary. And he wants all this despite saying that he doesn’t intend for his bill to go into effect.

If this is the stance of someone who’s against the Iraq war, what would supporting it look like? Does Rangel not know that this means that any warmonger such as Bush can count on guys like Rangel to systematically escalate his ability to fight wars?

Day after day, footage of him appears on TV saying that it’s not fair that the rich and privileged don’t need to join the military for an education or a job, and that it makes no sense for only some people to endure the burden of war. Almost his exact words are, “Either everyone should go to war, or nobody should.”

So we see what democracy does to its dupes. It fools them into thinking that we are all the government, and we should never seek to prevent war. And once war breaks out, we should escalate it as much as humanly possible. Any war should be a total war of the American way of life versus that of everyone else. Sure, we could try to minimize war, and that may even be just. But it’s not fair, so more people should fight and die if necessary.

Rangel asks why it is that the rich and privileged shouldn’t go to war as it is now. I’ll answer that, whatever the true statistics about the upper class and whites in the military may be. The answer is because they realize they have better opportunities than to fight murderous wars in the hopes that they’ll get a government-sponsored college education.

We should want this to be the case for even more people. And even if it was increasingly the case, it’s precisely this that Rangel objects to. Under Rangel’s doctrine, we won’t have anyone left who has better opportunities for themselves than a career in the military.

Rangel may object that not all these men and women are anarchists, and many of them may even support the Iraq War.  But it really doesn’t matter what their motives are. Draft dodgers and non-combatants in America could be child molesters for all I care. That does not justify kidnapping them, getting them to kill whomever George Bush or the next president deems our enemies, and forcing them to risk their lives for the government and morons like Rangel.

Now Rangel also believes that this will make politicians hesitate to start wars because there’s a chance their children will fight them. But these are the same politicians he wants to accept and support a draft, and are the same ones he wants to have control of the draft laws. Only they may choose exceptions or who conscientious objectors are, and of them they are expected still to do service for the government. “[Y]oung people (would) commit themselves to a couple of years in service to this great republic, whether it's our seaports, our airports, in schools, in hospitals.”

Politicians will be the ones deciding if their kids get out of the draft or not, or give them the insider information (but insider trading is still wrong, right?) on when and in what form a draft is coming.

Even if politicians somehow weren’t able to get their kids out of fighting war and not shipped to Germany, Japan, or one of the other over 150 countries where we have troops stationed, thanks to democracy, Rangel will be ensuring that those with political aspirations who are warlike and don’t have kids, or have kids who have already evaded fighting in war, will run for office.

A few anti-Iraq War politicians, and even fewer opponents of the War on Terror may try to run for office. But since most (preferably all) people will now become students of the state as well as its employees, and must necessarily be taught “civic values” like patriotism, how to defend our government against foreign and domestic enemies, and to support their employers such as Rangel, who openly says that we must mobilize for war with North Korea and Iran, we will only be ensuring a more warlike people who will determine which politicians may gain power.

There are more problems with the alleged ability of nationwide conscription to reduce the possibility of waging war. In order for a draft to be effective, most people have to have at least some kind of tacit consent or resignation to its existence. And once drafted, people have to swear oaths of loyalty to the government, agree to whatever rules the government sets for service, even if in some form of civil service domestically; and they must be taught a sense of patriotism and service for their government.

All this means is that under nationwide conscription, it will be necessary to more and more instill patriotism and compliance with the state. Public opinion must be swayed even more strongly in favor of military service and war by Rangel’s own admission, such as with North Korea and Iran . The government must greatly intensify its efforts to make us believe, as Rangel does, that any war the government fights is one we all must fight.

What kind of politicians would a people like this elect, and what kind of foreign policy does he think they’d support? By his own admission, this will be as fiercely warlike a people as you can imagine.

The mainstream opposition to his plan doesn’t even stand much of a fight in the contest for ideas. Laura Ingraham, who substituted as host of “The O’Reilly Factor” recently, discussed this proposal with another conservative/libertarian and a liberal. Both she and her conservative guest agreed that there are good aspects to a draft--that it would foster patriotism and could put people at work for the government domestically, such as in the capacity of police officers.

Her pitifully hollow objection to this program was that the government could potentially put people to work for a liberal agenda, such as making pro-lifers work for Planned Parenthood.

While what Ingraham says is perfectly true, and I agree with her objection, it’s like a critic of Kim Jong Il complaining that he’s biased. Of course the government will make you work occupations or for ideas you don’t like. The entire reason you’re drafted is because you would not have “voluntarily” conscripted yourself into service for the government in the first place!

The very “loopholes” that people such as Rangel’s hated rich and white use to avoid military service are what we need the most. We need bigger and better trade, entrepreneurs, and refuge from the government’s grasp. And we need to be free of shills like Rangel who sheepishly think that once America can wage total wars for whoever is in power, we will somehow have peace.