The one thing about political commentary/debate that bothers me the most is when people simply look at a piece of news and simply refer to those in the story as moron/moon bats and then say nothing else, as if that is real debate or commentary.  It's the lowest form of commentary, and says absolutely nothing about what you think your commentating on, except that you're incapable of making a sound argument.  Of course, that's exactly what's happening with the news that Rep. Charlie Rangel wants to create legislation to bring back the draft:

Americans would have to sign up for a new military draft after turning 18 if the incoming chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee has his way.

Rep. Charles Rangel, D-N.Y., said Sunday he sees his idea as a way to deter politicians from launching wars and to bolster U.S. troop levels insufficient to cover potential future action in Iran, North Korea and Iraq.

"There's no question in my mind that this president and this administration would never have invaded Iraq, especially on the flimsy evidence that was presented to the Congress, if indeed we had a draft and members of Congress and the administration thought that their kids from their communities would be placed in harm's way," Rangel said.

All the usual folks, including Michelle, are frothing over this as political hate, and maybe his reasons are cynical and stupid.  But is the proposal that stupid?  I find the reactions to this proposal from the right to be rather strange.  If you read enough blogs from the right, you'll hear one theme regarding the War on Terror repeat itself over and over again.  This is a war for our very survival, one that we cannot afford to lose, and one which will last for some time.  A lot of people talk about needing to stay in Iraq for several years, and making sure we keep Afghanistan free of the Taliban.  There is talk about invading Iran, and even North Korea.  All of these things are long term military engagements, and whether you want to believe it or not, will begin to stretch our military, if it hasn't already begun to do so.

Moreover, the overall feeling is that this is a War that people seem to feel separated from.  I think that the election a few weeks ago proves this very fact.  Unlike WWII (which many people use as a model for our current conflict in how we democratized Germany and Japan), people who don't have family members in the military have not been asked to sacrifice much in this war.  There is generally a lack of need for sacrifice, and fewer people feel like America is worth sacrificing for.

Many countries actually require all citizens to perform some level of service for at least two years by law.  And I know that there have been various pushes by Republicans from time to time for this very type of commitment (although not necessarily a military one) here in the United States.

So given all that, why is a draft so outlandish?  I'm not saying I agree with it, but I do think there is a case to be made.  I suppose it's my nature as a consummate debater that I can easily pick up either side of an argument (and often times win).

Now then, you can easily make the argument that our military today is one that thrives because it's an all volunteer, and extremely professional force, which is where it draws its power and prestige.  The size, and technical capabilities of our army make it such that putting a bunch of people in the military who don't want to be there would be counter productive, especially given how the war is unpopular in many circles.  In fact, the technical training required to serve in the military means that they actively want people who are more willing to make a career in the military... something the draft not only won't accomplish, but will harm.  You can also point to the fact that recruitment is exceeding goals as evidence that its simply not needed.

Now then, do I think that Rangel's proposal will go anywhere?  Do I view this as evidence that I should be remorseful for voting for a Democrat for Congress (despite his losing)?  Not really.  While it has a slim chance of passing in Congress, you know that Bush will veto it.  So this is most definitely a political ploy.  But I will tell you this... simply dismissing this proposal as idiotic will have only one consequence.  It will make you the only idiot.  A proposal which goes by without debate is a sure fire win, which makes you the sure fire loser.  I have no patience for people like you.