Once upon a time, in a distant land, I used to believe that the Christian Science Monitor was a fairly balanced source of news, similar to the Economist. So, while getting my news fix for the day, I decided to visit the site since I’ve haven’t been there really for a couple of years. And lo and behold, what did I find in an editorial?
“America’s youth must serve their country, one way or another”
By Edward Bernard Glick
PORTLAND, ORE. – The United States military has a very big problem: Too many global conflicts and commitments – and too few soldiers.
That’s why it’s time to reinstate the draft. A draft would do more than just harness the energy and idealism of the nation’s youth to meet the military’s unmet personnel needs. It would also tap more of the resources of the nation’s women, heeding their demands for more gender equality by making their obligations more consonant with their rights.”
http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0905/p09s02-coop.html
There, he said it. The dreaded “D-word” that is supposedly political suicide for any politician to utter except to refute it. So, is Mister Glick just some hack shouting his opinion to the right-echo chamber. Perhaps, but before rushing to judgement, considering that “Edward Bernard Glick is professor emeritus at Temple University in Philadelphia, where he specialized in civil-military relations. He is the author of “Soldiers, Scholars, and Society: The Social Impact of the American Military,” and “Israel and Her Army: The Influence of the Soldier on the State.”” I would place him a little above a hack and into the intelligencia.
So why do I believe this is not only a trial ballon, but a potential Hindenberg? Well, remember that I stated that once upon a time I believed the CSM to be balanced? Well, they had a reputation for that at one time, which means that they have a readership that crosses partisan divides. To float an opinion like this into the echo chamber would do nothing to test its viability with the public.
To make it a viable option, though, we need a wide audience and we need to dress the wolf in liberal and progressive sheep’s clothing. We started off with equal opportunity by including women, let’s see how much further his proposed policy “progresses” (couldn’t resist the pun).
“It would give the federal government more flexibility in dealing with conscientious objectors. And it would be fairer to African-Americans and other minorities, who might stop viewing military service as just another job choice.”
Ah, I see, we should include here in our militaristic policy room for “liberal” talking points of Affirmative Action – how’s that for a new twist of the race card. To be fair… If Professor Glick truly was concerned about the point of the military as a job choice, he wouldn’t be so divisive of race but rather hit the poverty issue. After all, little uneducated Lyndie England and uneducated, sadistic Graner are considered by some quarters as poor “white trash” and some of the most infamous perpetrators of our Iraq fiasco. Admittedly, I couldn’t stomach seeing all of those photos, but the ones I did see did not show any minorities. Again, it is not necessarily minorities that the policy is unfair against but rather our inexcusable POOR in which minorities are a part of. Do not try and muddy the issue Professor Glick in order to tug at our sentimentality to justify a draft.
He goes on to justify his idea for the draft based on issues that we, as progressives, genuinely care about.
“Here’s how the new draft should work:
- All able-bodied and able-minded 18-year-old men and women should have their names placed in a lottery. Depending on how many soldiers are needed – typically just a few thousand each year – a modest percentage would be drafted.
- Then, the names of all those who didn’t get drafted should be placed into a lottery for nonmilitary service in city or suburban slums, rural areas, native Americans reservations, or other poverty-stricken places.
- If the lottery puts draftees in a nonmilitary program – say, in healthcare – that requires more education and training than they possess, they could opt for getting that additional expertise in the civilian world. But then, the draftees would have to enter that nonmilitary program immediately after completing their studies.
Now, it is always possible that in any given year the number of young people eligible for both the military and nonmilitary lotteries may exceed the need for their services. But whenever any young people miss involuntary service by the luck of the draw, they will have done so more fairly and honorably than was true during the days of the Vietnam War.”
Point 1) ok, a lottery, on the surface that seems fair, right? “Look folks, a draft won’t be soooo bad, your chances are almost nil that YOU will be drafted.” Interesting, and what are my chances of being a victim of a terrorist attack again? And why then should I be so afraid? The logic just doesn’t work here. Additionally, the good professor is leaving out what is known as “mission creep” which is like Pandora’s Box. Once the regime has the ability to draft, it is very easy to keep ratcheting up those needed numbers of troops for further ill-concieved military adventures.
Point 2) Ok, this too seems fair, right? Non-military service to help with social programs for our poor. Again, wolf in sheep’s clothing, I say. President Clinton instilled a wonderful program called Ameri-Corps, haven’t heard much about that program in recent years. It was voluntary, and as the military has found out, volunteers are ALWAYS preferable to forced labor. I’d bet though, it’s funding was gutted even before 9/11. If Katrina is any indication of how this regime cares for the poor, I would not trust them to set up the enormous resources required for non-military service. When was the last time this regime instituted an effective social program? I call “empty promise” and refer to rebuttal of point one: mission creep for bodies in boots-on-the-ground. It’s much more profitable.
Point 3) Mister Glick, we already have such programs, the few that have survived tax-cuts for the wealthy. My home-state of South Dakota has such a (underfunded) program of educating Lakota Sioux in medicine to return to their people and provide much needed medical services. We don’t need a draft to implement much needed social programs, we need Congress to actually fund them instead of funding casino interests who in return pay for golf trips to Scotland.
Eventually the draft will require more bodies for military service not understaffed social services. Everyone is concerned about Iran at the moment, as well as they should be. Nevertheless, we should have more foresight than what has been written about such a gross mistake. It won’t stop with Iran, no it will draw in the whole region and possibly Muslim South Asia as well, we’re going to need a lot of bodies and social security numbers for this next mis-adventure. Again, wolf in sheep’s clothing.
“America must revisit the wisdom and morality of placing the responsibility for defending – and sometimes having to die for – this country only on volunteers.”
Again, twisting our own arguments against the progressive citizenry. He’s now playing on our sense of duty and patriotism. I agree, there is wisdom and morality in DEFENDING this country for all citizens. The last time it was necessary to DEFEND the COUNTRY was after December 7th, 1941. There is nothing defensive about our current and cold war aggressive policies.
“Consider the Israeli experience. Except for small minorities, Israelis feel that the responsibility for defending and dying for one’s country is a duty that must be shared equally. They feel that military service should not be determined by demographics, by social circumstances, by the unemployment rate, or any other aspect of the nation’s economy.”
Ah, here his true neo-con colors truly shine. Look, Israel’s history is not our history. Israel’s culture is not our culture. Israel’s threats to her existence are not our threats to our existance. Therefore, the sense of duty an Israeli feels is not comparable with the sense of duty an US citizen feels. Apples and oranges, Professor; academically you should know better.
“The Vietnam War and America’s history and philosophy have led us to opposite conclusions: A universal draft is not sacred. And our democracy demands an all-volunteer military.”
Absolutely right! What was that that Thomas Jefferson said again about no entangling alliances and sticking our nose in other people’s business? A volunteer military is quite sufficient to protect our borders from aggression. It is NOT sufficient in order to conduct wars of aggression and empire building.
He then finishes with the most insulting bastardizations of a quote from one of the greatest of Americans:
“Like all policy proposals, this one is based on assumptions: The first assumption is that it is proper for America to ask its youth for a period of service. And the second assumption is that it was right for President John F. Kennedy to declare, in his 1961 inaugural address, “And so, my fellow Americans: Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country.”
Indeed Mister Glick, indeed. And I cry Fie! Fie! A sheep in wolf’s clothing! This is indeed, dear reader, a most subtle form of propaganda and academic dishonesty.
How’s this for a plan. Not only do we pull our forces out of Iraq, but we pull our forces out of every corner of the world and bring them home. That we dismantle missle defense and use money that is used for the military-industrial complex not only for social programs instead, but also for research and manufactoring of new energy sources, thereby creating jobs and educating our poor so they can compete in an ever shrinking world. That we implement fair and equitable trade policies with developing countries. And when we have our own house in order, imagine how much of the wealth that we could once again generate and could share with those in need, ONCE THEY ACTUALLY REQUEST OUR AID, rather than dirtying our nose uninvited.
It’s only a pipe dream as long as the Time Warners and Halliburtons have control of our political processes.
We are the richest country on the planet, there is no excuse that we have such awful conditions in places such as South Dakota and West Virginia, there is no excuse that a tiny Caribbean island, which has been under embargo for decades, has a higher literacy rate per capita and better health care for all citizens. And at the same time, we are more than able to destroy the planet – it’s sick.
And just “imagine” that if we did such a thing, what would that do for other struggling people and despotic regimes to see, by the example we set with our own people, the United States of America become that “shining city on the hill”, fulfill the messianic myth of America by compassion instead of war.
No, dear reader, do not be fooled by such an “equitable” draft policy. It’s still a DRAFT!
And, I argue, a trial balloon for things to come….
