The Other Shoe Falls as Democrat Calls for Draft for Women

When outgoing Defense Secretary Leon Panetta signed an order allowing women in the military to join frontline combat units, the first question many conservatives asked was when would the draft be reinstated and used to “equalize” the gender breakdown of the military?

Currently, women make up less than one-fifth of our military forces. By liberal thinking, that’s “unfair.” Clearly, there must be discrimination at work.

Almost on cue, Rep. Charles Rangel, the House’s resident draft enthusiast, said Friday that he will once again introduce legislation to reinstate the draft, this time with the added requirement that women register for Selective Service, as men must do on their 18th birthdays.

In a statement, Rangel said, “Now that women can serve in combat they should register for the Selective Service alongside their male counterparts. Reinstating the draft and requiring women to register for the Selective Service would compel the American public to have a stake in the wars we fight as a nation. We must question why and how we go to war, and who decides to send our men and women into harm’s way.”

So here we see the larger plan. By giving feminists something they want, liberals mean to weaken our combat force by requiring the military to take an equal number of women, which will almost certainly necessitate easing of some of the standards for strength and endurance in combat units.

At the same time, Rangel’s proposal would cynically take advantage of most Americans’ aversion to putting women in harm’s way as roadblock to the U.S. ever using the military to assert its authority around the globe.

It’s a win-win for liberals, throwing sops to feminists, affirmative action lawyers, pacifists and the international enemies of America in one fell swoop.

And don’t forget the real motivation behind Rangel’s perpetual championing of the draft, the opportunity to eliminate the all-volunteer force in favor of a conscript force that will make sure more white people die involuntarily in combat. Or as Rangel puts it, making sure that when America goes to war, more families will make “real sacrifices.”

Rangel explained all this on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” show, in addition to complaining that “the Congress never gets a chance to vote up and down on these war questions. Every president just puts our kids in harm’s way and we just foot the bill.”

That might have something to do with the Congress not exercising its constitutional authority to declare war and hold presidents accountable. But let’s not quibble.

Rangel’s bill would require everyone to do two years of national service, either in the military or in civilian positions to be named later — perhaps filling out FEMA Corps, which still lacks an official mission.

Rangel added, “If this country has its security threatened, I would like to believe that all of us, no matter how old we are, would want to do something.”

But then keeping the nation secure isn’t really the point of this bill, is it?