...This idea is not new; periodically someone comes up with the idea that, with the U.S. fighting two wars, there is insufficient human cannon fodder to keep them going and prepare for Mr. Bush's next potential imperialistic misadventure. But, the draft is not now and never will be the answer, whether in Iraq, Afghanistan or anywhere else...
The current issue of Newsweek includes an article written by one Cpl. Mark Finelli who spent seven months serving with the U.S. Marine Corp in Iraq. Mr. Finelli writes of the need to reinstate the military draft, and lists several reasons for doing so. Indeed, he said he expected that to occur following 9/11, when he himself fled the burning and collapsing World Trade Center. President Bush's new war advisor (whatever on earth that means) seems to agree. Army Lt. Gen. Douglas Lute said it 'makes sense' to consider reinstating the draft.
This idea is not new; periodically someone comes up with the idea that, with the U.S. fighting two wars, there is insufficient human cannon fodder to keep them going and prepare for Mr. Bush's next potential imperialistic misadventure (Iran?).
Mr. Finelli's arguments seem to center around three main points: 1) that soldiers will be better protected when the sons (and possibly daughters, although Mr. Finelli does not include them) of war-mongering political leaders are at risk of dying in war zones; 2) these war-loving leaders might find war a little less palatable if it is Junior who has to fight it, and 3) the military needs more intelligent soldiers.
A look at each point, and than at the fundamental point that Mr. Finelli failed to address, is instructive.
Mr. Finelli noticed that private contractors in Iraq are sometimes equipped with Mine Resistant Ambush Protective (MRAP) vehicles; the companies that employ them apparently have the necessary funds to purchase them. The Pentagon claims that MRAPs are so safe that no soldier has ever been killed in one in Iraq and has begun providing them to soldiers there. However, of the 3,900 MRAPs promised for delivery to Iraq for American soldiers by the end of the year, only about 1,500 will actually arrive. And as a cost saving measure, the Pentagon, which previously had delivered them quickly by air, will now send them by sea, thus saving untold amounts of money.
One wonders how many lives would be saved if the shipping costs were not considered, but for some bizarre reason it is the money and not U.S. lives that are the top priority. Political leaders often decry the loss of 'lives and treasure' being poured down the endless drain of the Iraq War; obviously those in power think more of the treasure than of the lives. Said Mr. Finelli: "[U]ntil it's the sons of senators and the wealthy upper classes sitting in those trucks.the best gear won't get paid for on an infantryman's timetable." Perhaps he is correct; one has to wonder if the savings in shipping costs would be as important if, say, Jenna Bush were riding in one on a daily basis in Baghdad.
It seems naïve, however, to think that the game of war, played so inexpertly and with such disastrous consequences by Mr. Bush and his neocon yes-men, would be less appealing if their offspring were the pawns on the Iraqi chessboard. Mr. Finelli pointed out that his idea of a draft would not allow for the kinds of loopholes that allowed Vice President Dick Cheney to receive five deferments when he was of draft age.
But he seems to ignore the reality that well-connected and/or well-funded people will find a way to let others do their dirty work for them. Consider Mr. Bush himself, who was ostensibly in the service during the Vietnam era, but managed to spend a good deal of his time then working on a political campaign. The risk of their own sons and daughters going off to war can be mitigated; money and friends in high places will still prevent the children of war makers from making war. This eliminates the possibility that their war-loving parents will hesitate to start capriciously invading any country that happens to displease them.
"Allow me to build a squad of the five brightest students from MIT and Caltech and promise them patrols on the highways connecting Baghdad and Fallujah, and I'll bet that in six months they could render IED's about as effective as a "Just Say No" campaign at a Grateful Dead show." Mr. Finelli seems to believe that the 'brightest students,' working as soldiers, would have access to the equipment, time and other resources needed to build devices to avoid or minimize some of the risks, such as IEDs, that exist in Iraq. He seems to forget that it is more than likely that the student with straight A's at MIT will be digging a ditch as a soldier in Iraq. And more importantly, if the U.S. government were really interested in making IEDs and other threats to soldiers ineffective, it could contract with MIT and/or other universities to have that work done. A squad of their students, under the undoubtedly competent leadership of Mr. Finelli, would not accomplish the same task.
What Mr. Finelli has lost sight of is the plain, unvarnished fact that the U.S. invaded a sovereign nation, overthrew its government and caused a horrific civil war. It then expected its dedicated soldiers to fight an unknown enemy, thus worsening the situation in a variety of ways. The polarization between the Shiite, Sunni and Kurd populations is only exacerbated as they flee population centers where they lived together in relative peace for generations to somewhat safer but segregated enclaves. More soldiers will not make it better; when a gasoline fire is burning out of control the solution is not to douse it with gasoline. The reinstatement of the draft would provide an endless supply of gasoline to an out-of-control fire.
Foundational to any objection to conscription is the fact that regardless of what it is called, it is a form of slavery. The American Heritage dictionary describes slavery as follows: "The state of one bound in servitude as the property of a slaveholder or household." During most of the U.S.'s previous wars men were drafted; for a period of several years every aspect of their lives was controlled by the government, usually in situations that put them at mortal risk. These young men were not allowed to quit their 'employment;' doing so illegally resulted in penalties ranging from a less-than-honorable discharge to execution. They could not choose where to live, where or when to travel, what hours to keep, etc.
If they were married they could be arbitrarily pulled from their families and sent anywhere in the world the government who now owned them deemed necessary. This often caused and continues to cause great hardships for their families. In earlier generations it was usually the man who worked while his wife remained at home. With their husband-soldier gone, women then struggled to keep the farm going, and now struggle to meet mortgage, car payments and other expenses while attempting to raise their families alone. Soldiers were seen then and now, as a spokesman for the National Guard recently said, as 'deployable assets,' not human beings with needs, wants and emotions. In today's wars, like an MRAP but far more expendable in the mind of the government, they are only another tool in an immoral, imperialist war.
One can understand Mr. Finelli's frustration; he spent several months in a war zone and saw many dedicated soldiers die. He believes, and probably justly, that if the military had chosen to protect them, they would be alive today. What he seems to miss is that the war never should have happened, and each day it continues is a travesty. Forcing more Americans onto the Iraqi battlefield will only mean more deaths; more young Americans to die on the altar of the almighty dollar, so important to the Pentagon that it values it above the lives of soldiers.
Mr. Finelli closes his article with an interesting statement: "Young Americans: you may not want to kill jihadists, but they are interested in killing you and your loved ones. Wake up." One can understand that Mr. Finelli might see things in this distorted light. After all, Mr. Bush and his clamoring minions fostered this concept from shortly after the tragedies of that day and have not ceased, despite all evidence to the contrary, to justify two wars through this particularly skewed lens.
But the madmen behind 9/11 were not in Iraq; no credible investigative report, including that issued by the U.S. government, has found any link between Iraq and 9/11. Jihadists may have some interest in killing Americans, but that is usually limited to Americans who are physically oppressing them. Few have the means to fly airplanes into New York City skyscrapers; intelligence agencies, not foot soldiers, are charged with preventing that from happening. While U.S. aggression against the people of Iraq has certainly increased hatred towards the U.S., an increase of that aggression will not help matters.
The draft is not now and never will be the answer, whether in Iraq, Afghanistan or anywhere else. One must recall how effective it was during the Vietnam era; in protest of the draft students marched, burned university buildings and battled the police on America's streets and college campuses. Tens of thousands of young Americans left the country, never to return. The Vietnam War ended without the dire consequences to America that several presidents had predicted, but with over 50,000 young Americans sent to early graves, and between one and two million Vietnamese suffering the same fate. What Mr. Finelli proposes is exactly what Iraq, the United States and the rest of the world do not need.
by Robert Fantina [click here for more articles], who is a long-time activist for peace and social justice. He has worked with the Coalition for Peace Action in New Jersey. Following the 2004 presidential election, he moved to Canada, where he now resides. Robert is the author of Desertion and the American Solder: 1776-2006.