The New York Times opposes Rep. Rangel’s proposal to reinstitute the military draft—but not the concept of national service for young people.
Follow this link to the source article: "Rejecting the Draft "
Congressman Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.), the incoming chairman of the powerful House Ways and Means Committee, stated on November 20 that he will introduce legislation in the new Congress to reinstitute the draft. But the draft he envisions would be radically different from the drafts this country has had in the past: it would include not just a military component but a non-military national service component as well.
Rangel has introduced this proposal before. A 2005 news release from his office explained that the draft he envisions "would cover all men and women, 18-26 years of age. It would make military service compulsory for the number determined by the President or alternative national civilian service for those remaining."
Rangel’s call for universal involuntary servitude — for that is what it is — is so far outside the political mainstream that he would never be able to get it through Congress, right? Well, that is what the pundits are now saying. After all, even the liberal New York Times, the Establishment media premier paper of record, published an editorial on November 21 entitled, "Rejecting the Draft." So there nothing to worry about, is there?
Well, actually, there is — and part of the evidence is supplied by the Times’ editorial supposedly rejecting the draft. That same editorial, you see, calls for national service; it just doesn’t call for compulsory national service in the military.
According to the Times editorial: "The problem with the draft does not lie in the fact that it requires young people to spend some time contributing to the nation’s well-being before they embark on their life careers. We wish the president had called for such sacrifices after Sept. 11, 2001, when so many Americans were aching to contribute." The editorial added: "Some of the potential candidates for president in 2008 have said the United States should require all young people to devote a year or two to service after high school or college, and that idea should be debated during the upcoming campaign."…