Selective Service: A Shot Off the Bow

(A Response to "A Peaceful Call to Arms" NY Times 4/20/06)

Marine Paul Kane, a fellow at the Kennedy School of Government, has fired a shot off the bow in the war to make war possible. He advocates military conscription as a means to avoid prospective war with Iran by persuading the Iranians to disarm.

If you sense that Mr. Kane is something less than sincere, you are not alone. Nevertheless, he argues that it is of little use to rattle the saber if all available troops are already engaged – bogged down in two occupations for an indeterminate sentence. His proposal offers no exemptions or deferments – only a random chance of being caught in the military lair.

Mr. Kane is stretching credulity to new lengths. There are reasons for advocating a draft but this is not one of them. We have been threatening Iran since the infamous "Axis of Evil" pronunciation and the results have been spectacularly counterproductive. Our latest threat (was it accidentally or deliberately leaked?) is the use of tactical nuclear weapons. (How fitting that the only nation to employ nuclear weapons of any kind should now be the first to use a new generation of nuclear weaponry.)

Memo to Mr. Kane: If you are not dissuaded by nuclear attack, you will not be swayed by a military draft.

The advocates of military conscription are a strange and disparate lot. They cannot be characterized as pro-war or antiwar. They are drawn to this issue from countless points of view but they will not rest until the draft is reinstated.

Some argue that the draft is necessary for pragmatic reasons. The military is overextended, saddled with substandard recruits, and depleted after two long engagements in misbegotten wars and occupations. There are calls for troops in Darfur, troops on the southern border, guards in the Gulf Coast and the next disaster site, but the fact is: There are no troops. Our soldiers are committed and overcommitted.

The options are clear: Pay the soldiers more, contract more mercenaries, recruit more illegal aliens (with the promise of citizenship), reinstate the draft or reduce our commitments. Clearly, the only morally responsible options are the first and the last and both lead to the same conclusion. If we have to pay soldiers more than teachers, attorneys or political consultants, we need to reevaluate our priorities.

Others argue that there will never be a mass outcry against the war (like there was against Vietnam and opposing a Draconian immigration bill) until the sons and daughters of the rich and powerful are compelled to serve.

Some folks inherit star spangled eyes
they send you down to war
but when you ask them how much should we give
they only answer more more more

It ain’t me, it ain’t me…
I ain’t no fortunate one.

(John Fogerty, CCR "Fortunate Son")

It is a powerful argument that simply does not stand up to scrutiny. First, we have already seen a massive outcry against the war. The fact that it has made no discernable impact on either the policies of our government or the policies of the opposition party is key to understanding the difficulty of sustaining an active protest movement. With the complicity of mainstream media, government has relegated the antiwar movement to the sidelines of American consciousness – even to the radical extreme of confining protestors to a razor wire pen (Boston) and mass detentions in warehouses (New York) at our presidential nomination conventions. No matter how many we assemble on the streets of America, it is never enough.

While it is true that a draft would magnify and expand the antiwar cause, the reason is that the draft itself is an abomination. To advocate one abomination to oppose another is the faulty rationale behind Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib. It is an absurdity masquerading as a moral dilemma.

To complete the circle of moral ambiguity, the advocates of a draft are always quick to assert the innate "equality" of conscription. This posture ignores the fact that in all of human history, there have been countless military conscriptions but there has never been an equitable draft. Even if the government could give assurances that the wealthy and elite would not receive the exemptions that only privilege can afford, the result would be an elite class of country club conscripts that would never see the line of battle.

Some folks are born made to wave the flag
ooh, they’re red, white and blue
and when the band plays Hail to the Chief,
they point the cannon at you

It ain’t me, it ain’t me…
I ain’t no senator’s son.

The stone cold fact is: Military conscription will never be equitable. Even if it were, however, it would not take precedence over the moral imperative. Military conscription is a crime against humanity. It is an affront to human dignity. It presumes that no individual being is capable of making a moral decision not to engage in war.

Kane’s call for a renewed draft is a warning, a shot off the bow. Just as nuclear warfare is not off the table, neither is military conscription.

There is an election approaching. In addition to a call for withdrawal from Iraq, we must insist that our candidates take a vow against first use of nuclear weapons and military conscription.

The day when war itself is abolished remains a remote prospect that can only be achieved when the human race has evolved to a higher consciousness. As with slavery and child labor, the day will come. The next steps toward that evolution are (1) abolition of mercenary forces and (2) abolition of the draft.

It would be a step backward in the development of the human species to embrace a criminal act (military conscription) as the solution to another criminal act (aggressive war).

Jazz.

JACK RANDOM IS THE AUTHOR OF THE JAZZMAN CHRONICLES (CROW DOG PRESS) AND GHOST DANCE INSURRECTION (DRY BONES PRESS). THE CHRONICLES HAVE APPEARED ON DISSIDENT VOICE, THE ALBION MONITOR, BUZZLE, PEACE-EARTH-JUSTICE AND COUNTERPUNCH.

Random Jack
Random Thoughts by Jack Random & Friends