MyHeritage.org: Debunking the myths

Debunking the myths

November 28, 2006| By Nathaniel Ward

As Heritage’s Tim Kane reports, the old liberal canards that Rep. Rangel repeats are completely false:

Myth: Poor people with few opportunities enlist, often driven to military service because of structural unemployment.
Fact: U.S. troops come from wealthier neighborhoods than their civilian peers. In fact, the only underrepresented neighborhoods are those with the lowest incomes.

Myth: War is less likely under a draft because policymakers would not want to put their own loved ones in harm’s way.
Fact: There is simply no substance to the argument that a draft keeps the peace, but it must be said that “draft wars” were fought with higher troop levels, and higher casualties. In the last 60 years, America has fought two wars with conscription and two wars without. The logic that conscription was the critical determining variable does not hold.

Myth: The military would obtain better troops through a draft than it has through the volunteer force.
Fact: The all-volunteer force has had immense success in drawing highly motivated individuals through better pay. America’s military leadership is adamantly opposed to instituting a new draft. The generals and admirals argue that a draft would weaken mission capability and create enormous structural and management problems. Morale and force cohesiveness would suffer intensely, particularly with a two-caste military.

Besides being wrong on the facts, Rangel’s argument is insulting to the troops who bravely volunteered to serve their country. As Heritage National Security expert James Carafano wrote in 2004, “People do not become soldiers because they can't do anything else. Anyone who has served a day in the military knows there are easier ways to make a buck.”

Nathaniel Ward is the Editor of MyHeritage.org—a website for members and supporters of The Heritage Foundation.