Is it Drafty in Here?

Back in the 1960's, being anti-war and anti-draft went hand in hand. Not so much anymore:

An influential Democratic lawmaker on Sunday called for reinstatement of the draft as a way to boost U.S. troop levels and draw a broader section of the population into the military or public service.

U.S. Rep. Charles Rangel (news, bio, voting record), the incoming chairman of the House of Representatives' tax-writing committee, said he would introduce legislation to reinstate the draft as soon as the new, Democratic-controlled Congress convenes in January.

Asked on CBS' "Face the Nation" if he was still serious about the proposal for a universal draft he raised a couple of years ago, he said, "You bet your life. Underscore serious."

"If we're going to challenge Iran and challenge North Korea and then, as some people have asked, to send more troops to Iraq, we can't do that without a draft," he said.

Rangel, who opposed the 2003 invasion of Iraq, also said he did not think the United States would have invaded Iraq if the children of members of Congress were sent to fight. He has said the U.S. fighting force is comprised disproportionately of people from low-income families and minorities.

"I don't see how anyone can support the war and not support the draft. I think to do so is hypocritical," he said.

The Democrats once again are trying to score political points on the war in this goofy manner. What Rangel and these Democrats fail to realize is that the current all-volunteer military is the most highly trained fighting force on earth. Conscripted soldiers are, as a whole, not well trained and efficient as soldiers as a volunteer fighting force.

Incidentally, I know a lot of well-educated, middle class folks who decided to serve their country.

A draft will not do anything useful, except by possibly increasing the number of casualties because of improperly trained soldiers. It is embarrassing that Rangel would try to score points in that manner.