Issue date: 1/14/03 Section: Opinion

Late last month, U.S. Rep. Charles B. Rangel, (D-NY) wrote an editorial in The New York Times asking for a reinstatement of the military draft. Rangel wrote in the Dec. 31 issue that he will ask Congress to "support legislation (he) will introduce to resume the military draft." Rangel argues that minorities and the underprivileged comprise most of the modern enlisted military. A draft would balance out that proportion, forcing the American public and Congress to reevaluate the possibility of war with Iraq.

While Rangel's cause is noble, the overall effect of this gimmick is regrettable.  Avoiding war when possible should be a concern of members of Congress, but putting effort into something this drastic that will obviously not pass only wastes time. Rangel has taken this cause so far that he stretches logic and forces it to fit his argument. No flaw in the make-up of the military exists. If Rangel's planned bill did pass, it would hurt the disadvantaged he seeks to help. 

Rangel's argument that the poor compose most of the military is true, but the system that is now in effect works well. Most people who enlist in the military do so for financial reasons, and there is nothing wrong with that. At the Army's recruiting Web site, potential soldiers can see the financial aid available for those who join the Army. These figures shine light on the main reason the financially underprivileged enlist. Full-time recruits can earn up to $28,000 for college when signing up. 

For people who wouldn't be able to attend college otherwise, this is a large sum. It could easily cover an associate's degree at a community college, allowing entry into the work force. New enlistees can also earn cash bonuses up to$20,000. Along with college tuition help, the military pays monthly just like any other career. This adds up to a good deal for the disadvantaged.

For the middle and upper-classes, however, $28,000 for college carries less meaning. At Texas A&M, yearly costs total more than $14,000 each year, assuming in-state tuition, according to the Princeton Review. The sum that the Army offers covers only two years of school at a relatively affordable university.  Instead of serving in the Army for two to six years, middle and upper-class students feel they can work during college and earn scholarships to make extra money. Many of these students don't need extra financial aid to attend a university like A&M. With no financial need, these students feel that wasting two to six years of their life does not pay enough. 

The military serves as relief for people who have no other alternative for financial stability. Since the draft ended several decades ago, the current system was put in place and has been effective. Reinstating the draft would force the military to end such benefits because it cannot give everyone who is drafted the current benefits. This would hurt the economic class of people that the military helps. It would shut the door for many young people who would otherwise depend on the military to provide financial support.  

Not only would Rangel's bill hurt the lower class, it would not produce his desired effect. Rangel states that only one member of Congress who has a child enlisted in the military voted for the resolution that allows President Bush to use force against Iraq. He argues that if more members of Congress had children in the military, they would be less likely to vote in favor of war. 

The congressman assumes something that only the naive would assume: Children of the members of Congress will be drafted. This is simply not true.  According to the House press release, Rangel noted that, "service in the armed forces is not a common experience." Neither is being the son of a congressman. If the draft were reinstated, then surely the members of Congress would find ways for their children to be exempt. It would be Congress, after all, who would write this bill. There are simply too many factors that Congress controls for Rangel's plan to work. 

Congressman Rangel has the right idea. War can only hurt the American people, no matter what the class. However, Rangel's plan to reinstate the draft would only hurt the people for whom he seeks equality, and it would never be implemented in its ideal form. 

Page 1 of 1

Article Tools