"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.

Where exactly does Rangel think the volunteer military finds its recruits? Further, where does he get the idea that "kids" are placed in harm's way? The volunteer military is made up of adults, and presumably draftees would be adults as well. But it seems no one would have to join the military anyway, under Rangel's plan:

He said having a draft would not necessarily mean everyone called to duty would have to serve. Instead, "young people (would) commit themselves to a couple of years in service to this great republic, whether it's our seaports, our airports, in schools, in hospitals," with a promise of educational benefits at the end of service.

So what Rangel is really proposing is conscripting young adults into civilian government service. This would seem to run counter to the interest of public-sector unions, an important Democratic constituency, which perhaps is why other members of Rangel's party aren't rushing to embrace the idea, as Reuters reports:

A reinstatement of the military draft, being pushed by a senior Democrat, will not be slated for consideration in the House of Representatives, the chamber's newly elected top leaders said on Monday.

"We did not include that" in legislative plans for early next year, said Democratic Rep. Steny Hoyer of Maryland, who will be House majority leader when the new Congress convenes in January under Democratic control for the first time in 12 years. . . .

Incoming House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California told reporters on Monday that she does not support reinstating the draft, which was suspended in 1973 near the end of the Vietnam War and replaced by the all-volunteer army. . . .

Pelosi said Rangel was trying to underscore that the U.S. war effort should be a "shared sacrifice" and his legislation was "a way to make that point."

Indeed, it has long been clear that Rangel's daft draft idea, which he's been pushing since at least 2002, is more a piece of performance art than a serious proposal. In 2004, as we noted, House Republicans put it up for a vote, and Rangel voted against it! The Rangel proposal went down 402-2, with the only "ayes" coming from Pelosi pet John "Okinawa" Murtha and Fortney Hillman Stark Jr.

Meanwhile, a pair of Massachusetts Democrats are tackling another pressing national-security issue, reports the Boston Globe:

Representative Martin T. Meehan, a Lowell Democrat, said he plans to hold congressional hearings early next year of the House Armed Services Subcommittee [on oversight], which he is likely to chair, on a bill that would allow homosexuals to serve in the armed forces. . . .

Meehan's proposed change was backed yesterday by Representative Barney Frank, a Newton Democrat who is openly gay.

It seems unlikely that Meehan will succeed in changing the law; the Globe says Rep. Ike Skelton, who will be chairman of the Armed Services Committee, supports "don't ask, don't tell." The likely result, as when Bill Clinton made this his first priority on taking office 14 years ago, is to suggest that Democrats are less interested in national security than in esoteric ideas of equality.