On September 11th of this year, a 52 year old woman Army Sergeant was killed in action in Afghanistan. Her name was Meredith Howard. She hailed from Waukesha, WI, and she was the oldest U.S. war casualty in at least half a century. Details at: http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=494632
This raises a question that ought to be burning up the talk shows, but isn't:
What was a 52 year old woman doing in a combat situation in the first place? Why was the powerful United States resorting to what Nazi Germany had to resort to in the last days of World War II – calling up people you’d think ought to be too old to fight and throwing them into mortal combat?
Unfortunately, the answer is no mystery. The Bush war in Iraq has so drained our limited troops everywhere that we are recycling soldiers into combat in Afghanistan and Iraq – some for their third tours of war duty – who were past combat age, at least by commonsense standards, decades ago.
There is something completely immoral and possibly criminal about the nincompoops in the White House and the Pentagon starting a war we can’t finish, and then insisting that we “stay the course” using exhausted, often demoralized and overaged troops to do the fighting and dying for them.
HOW ABOUT GOING TO WAR
WITH THE ARMY YOU REALLY NEED,
MR. RUMSFELD?
Donald Rumsfeld’s glib retort to a soldier who legitimately complained of inadequate equipment and support, “You go to war with the army you’ve got,” might briefly have made sense when we needed a quick reaction to the destruction of the World Trade Center – at least until we could have raised a much larger army. But it makes no sense whatsoever long term.
It would have won the approval of the majority of Americans if a President who was a real leader, riding the surge of patriotism that arose on 9/11, called for an immediate reinstitution of the military draft. This would have given us the army we needed to complete the job that should have been done in Afghanistan – including capturing or killing Osama Bin Ladin.
Whether you believe (as I do) that we had no business going into Iraq (as opposed to Afghanistan) or you’re foursquare behind the war there, it’s clear that Donald Rumsfeld, George Bush and their followers plunged into Iraq with the abandon of a drunk diving headfirst off a high board into a dry swimming pool.
CHANGING RATIONALE,
UNCHANGING WEAKNESS
The Bush rationale for entering Iraq has changed many times – from the original claim that Saddam Hussein possessed and/or was manufacturing weapons of mass destruction, to the ridiculous claim that Saddam Hussein was somehow linked to Alchaida, to the latest ridiculous rationale that we are somehow transforming the world for the better by attempting to bring democracy to Iraq.
Clearly, even if this new rationale made any sense, there was no need to dash immediately off to war with the army we had. What difference would it have made if we had first raised a larger army and gone in, say, six months or a year (or even two years) later to chase Saddam Hussein into a rabbit hole? My goodness gracious Mr. Secretary, we might even have restored civil order in Iraq at the same time.
But of course, the White House and the Pentagon had no intention of raising a significantly larger army. To do so would have meant spending money and instituting a draft. You have to assume they thought this would incur too high a political price. The evident object was to ruffle as few American feathers as possible while we blew Saddam Hussein off his perch. Sacrifices? No. Tax cuts, at least for the very wealthy? Certainly. Tax increases to actually pay for our war effort? Don't be ridiculous. Weakness? Lots of it, but they kept it quiet in Washington.
AN EMASCULATED AMERICA IS THE RESULT
The “evildoers” of the world have smelled the weakness that these Bush policies have created. And this has enabled them to grow from cartoon despots exploiting only their own people to serious threats against America's security and that of the planet.
Soon after the U.S. invasion of Iraq, North Korea detected the stench of decaying American power, threw out the international monitors at its Yongbyon nuclear reactor, and got into the nuclear bomb business. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/kim/nukes/nukes.html
Even worse, as I sat down to write this article, news came over the wires that North Korea is now threatening to test a nuclear weapon. http://news.yahoo.com/fc/world/north_korea
Iran is next in the nuclear conga line. The fact that its radical Moslem President Ahmadinejad can virtually thumb his nose at the United States, leaving us with no alternative save to send Condi Rice out blustering on the talk show circuit, indicates that our weakness is showing like a gaudy necktie. The world knows we have few funds and virtually no army to spare.
Even Hugo Chavez, the President of Venezuela, who at this time has no reason to go nuclear, was able to flip us the bird at the UN recently with his jibes that President Bush is the devil, jeering that, “I smell sulphur.” Pakistan already has the bomb. So does China. Who’s next in the parade of small nations who dare to pull our tail or poke us in the eye?
WE NEED A DRAFT FOR MORE
THAN MILITARY STRENGTH
Instituting a draft (and restoring the taxes and tax rates that can pay for it) could have a powerfully positive impact on U.S. power around the world.
Aware that we could pour half a million or a million soldiers into their nations on very short notice, the North Koreas and Irans of the world would be a trifle less eager to tell us where to shove our concerns while they go about creating and building the next nuclear nightmare.
At the same time, adraft could also have a moderating affect on our government's stupid eagerness to march our kids off to wars that make no sense. Otherwise, members of Congress would have a hell of a time explaining to their constituents why so many neighborhood kids got called up and killed.
The draft helped end the war in Viet Nam because millions of young people (and it turns out, some of their parents) were outraged at having their lives placed on the line for virtually no reason at all. And ultimately, the kids were right. Despite dire predictions of a world falling like dominoes to Communism if we “cut and ran,” which we most certainly did, no dominoes fell after Viet Nam.
To the contrary, communist regimes either fell or were forced to reform least partially. The U.S. even manages to maintain good relations with Viet Nam, our former “enemy.” We're eager to trade with them now. Your most recently purchased sneakers may have been made by the daughter of a guy who was wearing sandals cut from tires and shooting at American soldiers only 37 years ago.
THE U.S. DRAFT SHOULD HAVE NO EXCEPTIONS
Every young person in the United States, male or female, in excellent physical condition or handicapped, ought to be subject to two years of national service. It ought to be as much of a patriotic duty – and an involuntary one – as paying taxes.
Obviously, somebody who can’t walk can’t be a combat soldier. Draft him or her regardless. That person can contribute to the national defense in a variety of other ways. You can’t walk? Sit there in your uniform and key quartermaster statistics into a computer. Or clean rifles. Or write training manuals. Or sort laundry.
You have plans to go to graduate school? Too bad – unless graduate school will give you a skill the army wants, such as surgeon. In that case, you can be deferred until you’ve got your medical degree, and then called up for service. Otherwise, you can go to graduate school after you finish your military service.
COMPULSORY SERVICE EVEN IN PEACETIME
Even if the world suddenly turns so peaceful that no U.S. Government can make use of a standing Army of several millions, everyone ought to be required to go through basic militry training – or some rough equivalent for those who are disabled – and then required to spend the rest of their two years of national service doing something useful for the nation.
Teach school. Clean bedpans. Clear slums. Plant trees in national forests. Join a reinvigorated Peace Corps, or its domestic equivalent.
Since there should be no exceptions to the draft – none whatsoever – you can bet that most of the wars we enter will either be wars of necessity or wars that end pretty quickly and disgrace pretty quickly those who caused us to enter them unnecessarily. How long do you think we’d be fighting in Iraq if President Bush’s daughters Jenna and Barbara were on the front lines? Would Hillary Clinton still be supporting the war if Chelsea were toting a rifle in Baghdad?
Every Presidential candidate in the coming primaries and elections – candidates of both parties – ought to be asked, “Do you support the restoration of the draft, with a clear no-exceptions clause?
If they answer no, ask them how they intend to defend this nation with a handful of ageing soldiers and new potential nuclear fronts opening against us with the regularity of dandelions blooming in spring.
If they answer that they won’t support a draft but plan to stay the course in Iraq, ask them how they can fight a war with soldiers who will be in their 60s and even 70s by the end of their second Presidential term.
My guess is that no matter what you ask, no candidate in either major party will publicly support a draft before the elections. It’s what comes after the election – no matter who wins the Presidency – that will be interesting.
