Live Free or Die

Here and there, I see more deluded support for the idea of reigniting the draft--actor Matt Damon seemed to endorse it, and progressive radio talker and writer Thom Hartmann definitely has.

Nothing any of them have said has changed my view of the matter--that in practical terms it is a suicidially foolish notion about on par with invading Iraq, Iran and China simultaneously, and on moral and political terms, it's as justifiable and American as slavery... but I'll try to keep my cool here.

Hartmann calls for "a universal draft with a strong public service option." However, his essay begins with the history of American resistance to the idea of a standing army, especially among the Founding Fathers. Jefferson thought a standing army was an "engine of oppression." He proposed a kind of on-call army, for which every youth would train for a year. Hartmann then endorses a universal draft so that there will be "a generation of citizens who feel more bonded with and committed to their nation, who have experienced the critical developmental stage of a 'rite of passage' into adulthood, and who have experienced more of America and the world than just their own neighborhood."

So where do we begin parsing the delusions and the mixed categories? I've already written about the last U.S. draft, which made it possible for LBJ and Nixon to escalate the fruitless violence in Vietnam, killing tens of thousands of my contemporaries for years after the U.S. rejected the terms and situation it eventually ended up with there. I've written about the willful ignorance and foolhardiness of believing that service will ever be universal--that the Bush twins or their equivalents will ever be forced into military uniform and under fire--or that any "strong option" to non-military service will ever be honestly implemented. Not based on cynicism about human nature or the collective intelligence of the U.S. government and its leaders, but on experience and observation.

Give a Bush the power to draft millions and watch the fun: besides imperial violence all over the world, undeclared martial law in American cities, more eyes and ears working the data mines spying on peace groups, gay rights and womens groups, "enviro-Nazis" and climate crisis non-deniers, nonconformists, non-Republicans and other terrorists; more kids from West Virginia learning how to torture strangers in Iraq or Guantamo or secret dungeons in Europe and Asia--all being fed and clothed at premium prices by Halliburton. Talk about your engines of oppression.

But let's forget the real world for a minute. Let's go at this logically. Jefferson was against a standing army. We have a standing army, and there's no proposal here to get rid of it--simply keep it supplied with as many bodies as American mothers can generate. But even in Jefferson's own brief, we see the seeds of the imperial problem. Jefferson was reacting to the War of 1812, which pitted England against the U.S. England was probably dissing the young republic, and even trying to subjugate it again, but it was also protecting Canada against U.S. ambitions. And what did Jefferson have to say about this? He noted that a proposal for a draft had failed in Congress by a single vote, and asks, what if we'd had it? He answered (or so Hartmann quotes him) "Instead of burning our Capitol, we should have possessed theirs in Montreal and Quebec."

So, sure, if we'd had a draft, we'd be ruling over Canada, and probably Mexico, too. And if we had a draft right now, what do you really think Bush and Cheney would be doing? The buzz is that they've rejected the Iraq Commission calls for expanded diplomacy and phased withdrawal, and they're trying to figure out how to send in more troops. With a draft, they would have all they need. There might be revolution, an insurrection of sorts within the U.S., but I don't see that on the list of reasons for a draft. About the only thing stopping Bush and Cheney from pouring more cannon fodder into Iraq, plus invading Iran, is that they've exhausted the standing army's capabilities--the joint chief's chief said last week that three-quarters of U.S. forces are not combat ready.

Hartmann may talk about national service options ("planting trees and assisting in schools") but he quotes Jefferson writing to Monroe, "We must train and classify the whole of our male citizens, and make military instruction a regular part of collegiate education. We can never be safe until this is done."

The "never be safe" part is clearly outmoded in this day and age--we aren't talking about arming the town's teenagers with muskets, although that's a scary enough notion. But Hartmann's agenda here is clearly in favor of universal MILITARY training and service. That's wrong in practical terms--in the romanticized view of what's necessary to defend a country in wartime, let alone advance its interests and the interests of humankind and the planet in general. Universal military training is useless--look no further than George W. Bush, hero of the Air National Guard. All it does is to further institutionalize the military model of solving conflicts with arms and violence, and the kind of thinking and feeling that leads to it. Which is a certain and sure prescription for universal death of civilization.

But perhaps the worst part of all of this is the thoroughly unAmerican concept of involuntary servitude, and this is practically a definition of it. The draft is slavery. It may not be for life, though it will quite often be for death. It's just plain wrong, and ironically enough, if there's anything worth fighting for, it's to make sure no generation of Americans ever has to face this again.

There are other "rites of passage" besides learning how to bomb people in the mistaken notion that they are video game characters. Even the so-called "boot camps," so popular for awhile as the way to straighten out errant youth, have been exposed as destructive failures. As for experiencing more of the world, what impression do you think people are getting of Iraq from a heavily armored humvee, or from the practice of "smile, kill, smile" our troops are engaging in, with their schzoid mission? Or for that matter, from the insulated Green Zone and huge military bases with their all-American Burger Kings and golf courses?


Let me be clear: I am not against national service. I am against compulsory, mandatory national public service, just as I am against forcing young men and women into the military, where it will be their duty to kill other people on the orders of idiots, fools and morally corrupt leaders, or else they go to jail in disgrace.

In fact I do believe that some kind of organization, modelled in some ways after the best aspects of military organizations, will be necessary in the future. The Civil Conservation Corps is a conspicuous example of such an organization that during the Great Depression did so much lasting good for this nation that we still depend on what it built--parks, bridges, post offices and other buildings, and public infrastructure.

But even though many young people felt compelled by poverty to join it, they did so voluntarily. (My father was one of them.) Millions of young Americans did not have to be impressed like sailors in 1812 (another grievance the U.S. had against England, if I remember my history correctly) to join the Peace Corps, or VISTA. President Clinton made Americorps a centerpiece of his first campaign, and it was enormously popular, but its funding was gutted by the Republican Congress.

If you want that kind of national service, why not fully fund it? You won't need a draft--young people and old will be there. Try trusting them. They will volunteer. That's the American way.

Iraq, Civil War and the Draft

Today the TV talking heads were debating the decision by NBC and a few other news corporations to defy the Bushites and call the Iraq violence "civil war." The Bushites have resisted this for more reason than their usual taste for obsfucation. Obviously they would prefer the news media to stick with "Operation Iraqi Freedom." But the implications of civil war are that the mission for U.S. troops would change, and in a practical sense their presence would lack a rationale.

As for the accuracy of the term, I found one of the talking heads, from Time Magazine I seem to recall, persuasive in saying that it is BOTH a civil war (Shia against Sunni Arab with power struggles within each group) AND an insurgency (just about everybody against the U.S., and many against the current government because of its U.S. ties.) It's two wars, two wars, two wars in one.

The push for a timetable, for "redeployment," which all means withdrawal, is becoming overwhelming in the media as in the Congress and the country. But such is the frustration with the insensibility (way beyond insensitivity) of the neoncon Bushite faction still holding the Executive--specifically with the John Kerry question of how do you ask someone to be the last one to die for a mistake-- that some progressives are falling off the deep end by calling for a draft.

Charles Rangel has made this proposal, and other liberals and "progressives" in the blogosphere agree. They say the burden falls unequally on the working or lower or lower middle class, and minorities, who join the all-volunteer army to finance school. They say the Republicans who support this war haven't served in the military, and none of their children do. (Not precisely true but mostly.) All good points. So they say let's make it all fair, spread the burden, and make sure America as a whole feels the consequences of war--by reigniting the draft.

To which I say, with all due deference, YOU ARE OUT OF YOUR FUCKING MINDS. Here's an idea that is just as practical--why don't you charge upper income white kids college tuition proportional to their family income, so a year of college costs maybe a million bucks. And give them the same deal--the Army will pay for their schooling if they join up. Great idea, huh? And one that will really, really work. Just as well as the draft.

First of all, the proponents' sense of Fairness is that they will structure the draft so that this time, nobody will get out of the draft because they are rich or powerful. I'm sorry, but I can't understand how anyone who has observed Washington or politics in this country can believe this is even remotely possible. Because it's utterly and completely though bitterly laughable that there ever would be a draft (or a draft law) that took rich kids who didn't want to go, or whose parents didn't want them to go. Short of a war that the entire country believed in anyway, enough that everybody was lining up to volunteer. That's the only time a draft can possibly work fairly--when it's just a way to manage the volunteers. And then it works by encouraging the well off and well educated to join up to become officers instead of waiting to be drafted as a lowly grunt.

Then there's the argument that if there had been a draft, Bush would never have gone into Iraq because the American public wouldn't have allowed it. To which I say HAH HAH HAH HAH HAH ETC or in Internetese, LOL to the power of 100. Believe that, and I've got some WMD in Iraq to sell you a war with.

Please: with a draft, we would not only be in Iraq now, but Bush and John McCain would be arm in arm, announcing a new draft call to put another million soliders into Iraq and Afghanistan, to settle things down. And to get ready for the invasion of Iran.

Honestly, were you all comatose during Vietnam? When we had a draft? Our longest war? That in one way or another deformed an entire generation of men, and ruined countless families?

I simply can't believe that anyone who was alive during the last draft could possibly believe that we would have a draft that was "fair," that it would do anything other than provide maniacs like Bush and Cheney with more cannon fodder; that there would be meaningful exemptions for conscientious objectors (handed out no doubt by the folks that brought you Guantanamo and reports on Quaker meetings saying they were a threat to the military), or that there would be a "national service" in which young people could choose to serve in a non-military capacity (tell it to the National Guard, please.)

Some of the proponents want simply to debate the draft proposal, because it would bring home the true cost of this war, or of future wars. I've got a better idea--why don't you just bring home the true cost of this war and future wars, and forget about the stupid draft? Let's get serious and focused. An unworkable system of involuntary servitude and a larger war (and anti-war) culture is not the way to do it. How about funding educational opportunities for everyone, paying soldiers decently so their families don't have to go on food stamps, give them good medical care for the rest of their lives and, by the way, equip them adequately when they are in harms way; and then how about dedicating some of the bucks a draft would cost to developing and nurturing the skills of peace that might actually help global civilization survive? That might be difficult, but at least it isn't insultingly insane.