Two months into President George Bush's much-vaunted 'surge' - the addition of tens of thousands of soldiers in Iraq - the U.S. commander in that country, General David H. Patreaus, has noted 'modest progress.' In fairness, he did not neglect to mention the dramatic rise in suicide bombings outside of Baghdad.
What's needed now, he told the world, is for political compromises between the internal warring parties to be brokered by the current leaders of Iraq. The fact that those parties have been warring for generations and are only united in their hatred of the United States was somehow excluded from his assessment. Either way, he said, stabilizing Baghdad, which was stable prior to the U.S. invasion, could take a decade.
So while the world awaits these elusive compromises, the Bush administration ponders the possibility of once again extending the length of time American soldiers must police Iraq's civil war. It was only in April that these tours of duty were lengthened from twelve to fifteen months, violating the military's own goal of providing equal time in deployment and at home; the time at home is only twelve months between deployments. But in order to maintain troop levels through 2008, the administration says, something must be done.
Other options, of course, are also being considered. Additional reliance on the Reserves is one possible choice, despite nearly universal assertions that the Reserves are meant for domestic duty in time of national emergencies and are already overstretched, leaving the U.S. vulnerable to natural or military disasters. Increasing the use of the Reserves will not be easy for Mr. Bush to accomplish.
There is one other possibility that Mr. Bush has not publicly discussed, and his silence on the matter is alarming. When the country is at war and there are insufficient numbers of soldiers to wage that war, America has always reverted to modern-day slavery, euphemistically called 'conscription,' or the draft. The possibility of this must not be dismissed.
Mr. Bush could potentially find a receptive Democratic Party if he chooses to take this route. Congressman Charles Rangel (D- NY) has long supported reinstating the draft. On March 23, 2006 Mr. Rangel said this: "President Bush's assertion that the decision to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq would be up to the next President is the best evidence yet of the need to reinstate the military draft." While no one has jumped on this particular bandwagon, there have been statements that at least tacitly support it.
Politicians, it has been said, might be less eager to embark on wars if there was a greater chance that their own children would be in the line of fire. And a draft would, some say, eliminate the so-called 'poverty draft' that entices economically disadvantaged young men and women into the military for educational and other benefits. And with the Democratic Congress having proved itself spineless, there is little possibility that it would successfully oppose Mr. Bush in this regard. A show of bravado about not allowing the draft would be followed by some pseudo-patriotic statements about 'supporting the troops.' How forcing more young Americans to be at constant mortal risk in a war zone is 'supporting' them is beyond reasonable consideration.
At the height of the Vietnam War, 20,000 men were being drafted each month. The ongoing result at that time included riots in the streets and on college campuses, and the exit of approximately 50,000 young Americans to Canada where a warm welcome awaited them. Nearly 60,000 young Americans died, and the goals of the war as articulated by Presidents Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon were never achieved. And now, as the American public clamors for an exit from Iraq, with their cries ignored by the President and Congress, more young men and women are being sent to their deaths as they attempt to police the civil war America unleashed.
In order to maintain current and anticipated troop strength through 2008, Mr. Patreaus tells the world, tours of duty must be extended, or the Reserve units must be more heavily relied upon. How long will it be before someone decides that too many poor young men and women are seeing through the lies military recruiters tell them, and the military ceases to reach its recruiting goals? Even today they are only being reached because the standards have been lowered to the lowest point legally possible. How long will it be before the number of soldiers opting for desertion and possible imprisonment over returning to Iraq depletes the number of forces to such an extent that Mr. Patreaus, Mr. Bush and their cohorts call upon young Americans to 'do their duty' as they - Mr. Bush & Co. - determine it?
One wonders how much success Mr. Bush would meet, should he succeed in reinstating the draft. Will potential draftees answer the dishonorable call being made to them, or will they listen to the words of those who have seen the war first hand? Those statements and experiences are instructive:
- Spc. Eli Israel, currently serving in Iraq, has refused continued participation as a combatant in the war. Refusing orders at time of war, and in a war zone, carries extremely harsh consequences. Yet he has chosen to do so. Said he: ".we are now violating the people of this country (Iraq) in ways that we would never accept on our own soil." Further, he has advised his 'superior' officers that he ".will no longer play a 'combat roll' in this conflict or protect corporate representatives.."
- Marine Corps Reservist Stephen Funk, the first enlisted man to publicly refuse deployment to Iraq, stated the following: "I will not obey an unjust war based on deception by our leaders."
- Sgt. Kevin Benderman, who deserted after ten years of military service and one tour of duty in Iraq, reported displaced Iraqis living in mud huts and drinking from mud puddles; he saw mass graves where dogs fed off the bodies of men, women and children. At one point he passed a woman and her injured child begging for help. Mr. Benderman's superior officer refused to assist this victim, claiming limited medical supplies as the reason. Said Mr. Benderman: "That was an eye opener to seeing how insane it really is."
- Sgt. Camilo Mejia, the first Iraqi war veteran to publicly oppose the war, referred to it as "oil-driven,' illegal, unjustified and based on 'lies about weapons of mass destruction, and the connection between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda."
Will Mr. Bush's potential cannon fodder - young Americans - heed his long-disproved words about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, about Iraq being the 'central front on the war on terror,' and his other jingoistic statements, and allow themselves to be drafted? Or will they consider the words of the soldiers and former soldiers, including those listed above, and refuse participation in the war? Will students on college campuses blindly accept the dictates of the government, or will they look past the lies and find the obvious truth?
As the war escalates one must not sit complacently back and put a fresh American flag decal on their window. As the American death toll steadily climbs towards its next milestone - 4,000 - the war may soon be up close and personal for far more Americans than it is today.
Americans cannot rely on Congress to protect their interests; member of Congress are more concerned about the next election than they are about the sons and daughters of those who elected them. Continuation of the war must be actively and vigorously opposed by those very citizens; any talk of conscription must be defeated as soon as it is raised. A draft will only prolong the war and all the suffering that accompanies it.
by Robert Fantina <click here for contact>, 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.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(27 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
