Monday, November 20, 2006

Rangel and the Draft...

Major Mike

Charlie Rangel is making another effort to raise the Titanic, as he once again calls for a re-instatement of the draft. Ostensively this is to grow the size of the forces to cover other US contingencies.

He believes a draft would bolster U.S. troop levels that are currently insufficient to cover potential future action in Iran, North Korea and Iraq.”

Although he thinks this sounds good to the public ear, it is a ridiculous proposal from the military’s point of view. Here are some of the many reasons:

1. A draft dilutes the gene pool. Our current all volunteer force has the objective of recruiting 100% high school graduates. While this in not always possible, the objective is to have the educational levels of recruits match the technological requirements of the modern Army/Marines. The “simple” grunt isn’t so simple anymore…he may be equipped with night vision devices, advanced communication equipment, and positioning and locating systems. The Command and Control systems of today’s forces go well beyond the old…C3…Command, Control, Communications. We’re now integrating computers and intelligence gathering and dissemination systems…sometimes down to the “simple” grunt. There is a lot more to the basic infantryman than his rifle and a magazine of 5.56 rounds.

2. A draft will increase training costs at recruit training and following schools. Dealing with a greater percentage of recruits with no desire to serve will drive up failure rates at the recruit training centers. This comes with greater out of pocket fiscal costs, but it has produces a long pipeline of hidden costs…more recruiters needed to recruit to the higher failure rates, larger training staffs, larger administrative staffs, higher cost to process failures out of the services…and on and on. Malcontents, who do not want to be in the service…even disenchanted volunteers, are an incredible drain on resources. It would be a sad waste to purposely populate the services with disgruntled recruits.

In fact Rangel's own House Appropriations Democrat Staff report suggests that even a lessening of the standards in the All Volunteer Force is causing some friction in the Army...

"A negative reading suggests that the Army has relaxed its standards in order to retain as many new recruits as possible to fill the war ranks. Anecdotal evidence from discussions with Army company commanders suggests the latter. For example, these commanders reported that the number of disciplinary actions resulting from drug and alcohol abuse had skyrocketed over the past year."

...what would be the likely result if we populated the services with a high percentage of draftees...? Anyone? Bueller?

3. Unless enlistments are four years in length…which will be highly unlikely in a draft, then the entire exercise of recruiting and training members is a waste. Members MUST be in the service long enough to complete their basic training, their follow-on skills training, be shipped to their unit for training, then to complete a one year deployment with their unit, then have a few months left over for a proper out-processing. This brings the minimum viable enlistment time to between three and four years, and it accommodates for any training setbacks, such as injuries. Training anyone that cannot complete the cycle is a complete waste of time. Shipping a person to a combat zone, and skipping their unit training, is a Vietnamesque scheme that breaks down unit cohesion and diminishes combat effectiveness. This is the key sticking point with the military…unless someone can complete a full training and deployment cycle, it is a monumental waste of time, energy, and money to bring them into the service at all.

4. The only thing holding back increases in force structures are Congressionally approved budgets. The volunteer forces have the ability to ebb and flow with the needs of the country. The House’s own report recognizes the Army’s success in recruiting, once funding was increased. Force structures can easily grow, and they are not dependent on a draft to accomplish that, all it takes is adequate funding for people, equipment, bases, supporting troops and services, infrastructure, etc. Unless Rangel wants to use the draft to grow the force on the cheap, by underpaying draftees…

Charlie Rangel is simply trying to stir the pot with a red herring. The military won’t bite on it, and it looks like the MSM are the only ones giving him the time of day on this.

I suspect Rangel is trying to stir up a class conflict…where none exists, or a racial conflict…where none exists. Regardless, as one of the Dems “top Democrats,” Rangel should get out of the way of the military on this one, and keep his pie hole shut. His service in Korea notwithstanding…he is no expert here, and he needs to butt out.

Unless, and until, the All Volunteer Force proves incapable of sustaining itself, all talk of the draft should not only be should be abandoned. The Armed Forces saved themselves from the Congressionally induced malaise of the Seventies, they do not need to again be rendered sub-standard by the same body. No draft.


Mr.Atos said...

Charles Rangel is a ward boss, posing as a Statesman. He is an old-style Charlattan, no more no less. The fact that a man of such low character and priciple can be elected time and again, tells us that there are districts in the US that have change little since Tammany Hall.

Of course he doesn't believe a draft is either effective or required. He's just looking for the latest 'angle' ... like any thug or con-man. And I suspect, a draft would serve to self-full his otherwise absurd view of America while providing him exceptional power to manipulate its selections of service. Afterall, would you speak against his faction if you suspected he might nab your sun or daughter by selection and send them to the latest UN-created sub-saharan nightmare?

He is a thug. Thugs need power.

Mr.Atos said...

One more thing that occurs to me. The Left cannot control a volunteer military, where men of virtue and honor, recognizing their value and those of their countrymen, dedicate their lives in the service of defense of their highest values on the frontiers of chaos. Such men and women, not only have no respect for the likes of a thug like rangel, they LOATH him and his ilk.

But, slaves forced to serve their nation and its people by 'selective' force, will not only despise such service, and loath their brethren, they will yield readily to the whim of a fungus like Rangel.

That is what the fungus desires. Is that the kind of man we want to 'defend' our values?

Major Mike said...

I think you're right on Rangel, and I think you may have the correct insight on the bigger picture here...the Left attempting to break down the near conservative monolith of the military through the draft...hmmmm. They're not that clever...are they?

Mr.Atos said...

Aren't they?! Note that thugs are ignorant in the manner or wisdom, intellect, and moral integrity. But, they are brilliant in their trades of theft, deception, and malevolence. And Charles Rangel is a veritable champion of his trade.