Rep. Rangel: Wrong on the facts, wrong on the draft
November 28, 2006 | By Nathaniel Ward
The Left can’t seem to stop getting the facts wrong on the military. A few weeks back, Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) argued that the military is composed of those who do poorly in school. Heritage was there with the facts to prove that those in the military are actually better-educated than the average American.
Click here to read the whole Heritage study on the troops that refutes these claims.
Rep. Charles Rangel (D-NY) has now come out with another whopper. In a New York Daily News column arguing for a new military draft to “share the burden” across the population, he falsely alleged that
The great majority of people bearing arms for this country in Iraq are from the poorer communities in our inner cities and rural areas, places where enlistment bonuses are up to $40,000 and thousands in educational benefits are very attractive. For people who have college as an option, those incentives—at the risk to one’s life—don’t mean a thing.
Then he told Fox News over the weekend that young people join the armed forces only as a last resort. “If a young fella has an option of having a decent career or joining the army to fight in Iraq,” he said, “you can bet your life that he would not be in Iraq.” Click here to watch the whole video on the Hot Air weblog.
Debunking the myths
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.”
- Send this debunking of Rep. Rangel’s myths about the troops to a friend
- Tell a friend about MyHeritage.org
- Not yet a subscribed? Click here to sign up
Heritage sets the record straight in the media
Even as Rep. Rangel repeats his distortions about the troops, Heritage is working overtime to ensure the media have all the facts. This effort has paid dividends. Here’s just a few of the newspapers and magazines that have cited Heritage’s troop demographics study to refute the Congressman’s claims:
- The American Spectator
- The New York Sun
- The Philadelphia Inquirer
- The Rocky Mountain News
- The San Jose Mercury News
- The Wall Street Journal
- The Washington Post
- The Weekly Standard
Blogs are also taking notice of Heritage’s study to refute Rep. Rangel’s misleading statements. Here’s a few:
Why a draft is wrong
In his New York Daily News article, Rangel wrote that he will once again call for a new military draft, which would include both men and women between the ages of 18 and 42. Rangel says that this draft would be “fairer” than the all-volunteer citizen military and prevent the military from “dipping further into the reserves and National Guard units.”
This is a terrible idea that would weaken our military during wartime.
But Rep. Rangel’s plan goes beyond the military to government direction of the economy, where Washington bureaucrats would assign workers to “important” jobs. He said that, under his plan, “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, in hospitals.”
“Regardless of Rangel’s arguments,” Heritage’s Tim Kane writes, “justification of a ‘just draft’ presents a philosophical dilemma.” He continues: “Empowering the central government to oversee and restrict the employment of all young Americans for two years is not consistent with common good restrictions and is instead a dangerous violation of individual liberty.”
The New York liberal calls this ridiculous scheme “national service.” It’s really another step on the road to socialism.
The success of free enterprise
Many liberals complain that today’s economy no longer provides the job security that it once did. This analysis is true, Kauffman Foundation President Carl Schramm said yesterday at The Heritage Foundation, but it’s far from a bad thing. Ours is “a much more messy, unpredictable economy” than that of the 1970s and America is better off for it.
Click here to find out what changed to allow this dynamic new economy.
In other news
- The Senate’s January agenda will include a dramatic minimum wage hike, throwing money at embryonic stem-cell research and ethics reforms, incoming Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) said.
- Some media outlets have taken to calling the ongoing conflict in Iraq a “civil war.” But whatever it’s called, America should not begin a headlong retreat that will embolden the terrorists. Fortunately, President Bush stood firm today at the NATO summit, pledging not to withdraw prematurely.
- Rising sentiment against international free enterprise, “predicated on a false assumption that trade harms our economies,” threatens American prosperity, Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson said this morning.
- World Carbon dioxide emissions are double what they were in 1990, a new study reports. This is despite the tremendously costly and ineffective command-and-control efforts by Europeans and others to reduce emissions to 1990 levels.
- More and more British women are having abortions as the procedure becomes destigmatized, The Telegraph reports. The head of a British abortion provider told the newspaper that many women now see abortion as “as a more responsible response to being a victim of uncontrolled fertility.”
Coming up at Heritage
To attend these or any other Heritage Foundation events, RSVP at Heritage’s events website. Or you can watch these events live online at Heritage.org. All times are Eastern.
- On Wednesday, November 29 at noon, Heritage hosts a special screening of Obsession, a film taking an “insider’s view” of the hatred radical Islamists are teaching, their incitement of global jihad, and their goal of world domination.
- On Monday, December 4 at noon, Prof. Jeremy Rabkin will examine ideas of sovereignty and international politics in the context of the Iraq war.
Nathaniel Ward is the Editor of MyHeritage.org—a website for members and supporters of The Heritage Foundation.
