Rangel's Angle - Representative Charles

Rangel's Angle - Representative Charles Rangel runs for the right on military policy.

Or does he?

Rangel has proposed "universal military service." This could mean anything from the old-fashioned "draft" - the onerous lottery we rid our nation of 30 years ago - or it could mean National Service, like in Switzerland, Israel and a few other countries, which some conservatives (including myself) have supported. And even for a few of the same stated reasons:

Rep. Charles Rangel, D-New York, said such legislation could make members of Congress more reluctant to authorize military action.

That's one of the reasons I cited in the article I link above. I used to wonder - would we have been as quick to jump into Haiti and Kosovo if Chelsea Clinton were serving as a reservist in a Military Police company? If the children of the Beltway elite were serving in the military - as well as some of the elites themselves (reserve service in Switzerland and Israel ends at age 50 - 55 for officers), how would it affect our military policy?

But what's Rangel's real agenda?

"I'm going to introduce legislation to have universal military service to let everyone have an opportunity to defend the free world against the threats coming to us," Rangel said on CNN's "Late Edition."

"I'm talking about mandatory service."

The Korean War veteran has accused the Bush administration and some fellow lawmakers of being too willing to go to war with Iraq.

"When you talk about a war, you're talking about ground troops, you're talking about enlisted people, and they don't come from the kids and members of Congress," he said.

"I think, if we went home and found out that there were families concerned about their kids going off to war, there would be more cautiousness and a more willingness to work with the international community than to say, 'Our way or the highway.' "

Rangel did not provide specifics of his proposal.

Indeed, he didn't.

Sergeant Stryker has an excellent piece on the subject.

Several points come to mind:

• Militarily - especially when fighting overseas - a professional, volunteer military IS a better thing.
• The "Draft" - the "lottery" system we had - IS onerous.
• However, if used properly, National Service - as in Switzerland or Israel - doesn't have to be an onerous burden. It's a duty of citizenship - sort of like paying taxes and serving on juries. It's like . It also doesn't make the military particularly less competent, if applied correctly - Israel's military does generally OK. For providing troops for domestic defense, disaster relief and supporting operations abroad (as opposed to sending masses of draftees overseas), it's not necessarily a bad thing, IF applied properly.
• But we all know that's not Rangel's angle. It's hard to know what he wants, except to find some backdoor way to stymie the administration - which has been the force propelling his career for the past two years.

The idea itself gets a C - it does nothing for the defense of our country, but in other democracies can be shown to have been a good thing. The motivations get a D - he's sniping at the President, even if it's for motivations even a lapsed Libertarian like me can grudgingly accept. Rangel's political acumen? It's an F. As Instapundit notes, I doubt it'll get a lot of traction. Our military ain't broke.

Hm. Maybe that's what Rangel's after?

By the way - in the world's most successful "Universal Service" systems, like Switzerland, Israel and Norway, people serve for a period in the army (less than a year in Switzerland, a few years in Israel), and then in the reserves until age 50. They also keep their military firearms and ammunition at home, in case they're mobilized. That surely can't be what gun control advocate Rangel wants...

Posted by Mitch at December 31, 2002 08:26 AM