Who We Are
Board and Staff
CCCO In the News
CCCO On the Road
THE OBJECTOR
a magazine of conscience and resistance
Publications
Links
Subscribe to our monthly newsletter:
Objector Alerts
objector-alerts archive |
Should There Be A Draft?
By Steve Morse, CCCO Staff - October 2004
Eyes Wide Open exhibit makes an impression in Washington D.C.
Millions of people are worried and scared about resumption of the draft. CCCO’s offices are getting lots of calls and visits to our tables from people concerned about the draft affecting themselves, their children and grandchildren. It is widely felt that neither presidential candidate will touch the draft issue before the election, but that a draft could come in the spring. The Bush regime wants one, two, three, many imperial wars to match its fiasco in Iraq – where will it get the troops without a draft? Kerry wants 40,000 more troops but has repeatedly criticized the “backdoor draft” (see below). Where will he get the troops?
We at CCCO are opposed to resumption of a draft. The purpose of a draft is, and has always been, to serve an expanding militarism, and to provide cannon fodder to do that. Drafts have never existed to create fairness in society, but it is important to look at why some anti-war people are speaking for a draft, and also what "drafts" already exist.
The draft bill HR 163, along with its Senate twin, S89, has been dormant in committee since the beginning of 2003. (It was brought for a vote on October 5 by the House Republican leadership, and voted down 402 - 2. This was the first time ever that a bill had been brought to the floor by people that were opposing it. The vote was a show, to persuade people that the Republicans had no intention of instituting a draft) These bills would “provide for the common defense by requiring that all young persons in the United States, including women, perform a period of military service or a period of civilian service in furtherance of the national defense and homeland security, and for other purposes.” HR 163 was proposed by Charles Rangel of NY; John Conyers of Michigan is closely identified with it. Some other members of the Congressional Black Caucus are also co-sponsors, although many of the most activist members of the caucus, such as Barbara Lee, Maxine Waters, Major Owens and Bobby Rush have not endorsed it. This summer, Jesse Jackson, Jr. signed on as co-sponsor, but Eleanor Holmes Norton removed her co-sponsorship. Outside the Black Caucus, Pete Stark is a co-sponsor, as is Jim McDermott, the only Congress member who belongs to Veterans for Peace! These folks are not big supporters of Bush’s war policy. So what is going on?
Charles Rangel speaks about the draft.
Rangel writes in a New Year’s Eve (2002-3) statement,
“But as a combat veteran of the Korean conflict, I believe that if we are going to send our children to war, the governing principle must be that of shared sacrifice. Throughout much of our history, Americans have been asked to shoulder the burden of war equally. …
I believe that if those calling for war knew that their children were likely to be required to serve - and to be placed in harm's way - there would be more caution and a greater willingness to work with the international community in dealing with Iraq. A renewed draft will help bring a greater appreciation of the consequences of decisions to go to war.
Service in our nation's armed forces is no longer a common experience. A disproportionate number of the poor and members of minority groups make up the enlisted ranks of the military, while the most privileged Americans are underrepresented or absent."
Rangel’s bill and the national discussion it opened up must be given credit for exposing the issues of class and race vis a vis the military. During the Vietnam war, the avoidance of the military by the affluent and privileged was a national scandal. The preponderance of African American and Latino soldiers (and working-class soldiers in general), on the front-lines of combat and among those killed was noted then by anyone paying attention. The draft lottery that was instituted in 1969 did not significantly change this fact. Incidentally, we owe a debt to the African American GI’s who were in the forefront of acts of resistance during the Vietnam War era for their part in creating the “Vietnam Syndrome”, which has limited the ability of the US government to carry out direct military interventions ever since. These black veterans are now invisible - notice the absence of the voice of any Vietnam veteran of color in the current issue of Vietnam war participation of the Presidential candidates.
It's not only during the Vietnam War: contrary to what Rangel says, there has never been shared sacrifice, and the burden of war has never been shouldered equally. The poor and working class have always fought. A $300 payment could get you out of the military in the Civil War. World War II came the closest to being a shared burden but primarily because so many soldiers were called up. Yet, World War II was the war in which highly decorated Japanese American soldiers had previously been in internment camps; it was the war with the segregated military where German POW’s were treated better in the South than black soldiers. Even if, magically, entrance into the military became equal, with the rich and highly educated as likely to enter as the poor, the existing class and racial hierarchy within the military would still exist: the rich becoming officers or having easy, non-combat duty, and poor folks dying. Changing this inequity is not even mentioned by the draft proponents.
Fernando Suarez del Solar with a photo of his son Jesus, one of the many Latinos killed in Iraq.
The current draft bills mention national service, but in fact, non-military conscientious objection is weakened by becoming subject to “the discretion of the president”. Anyway, do we really need to coerce and corral young adults? What they need are opportunities. Many young adults are already performing an important service doing jobs and projects that involve fighting corporate power. Don’t expect this to be allowed under “national service”.
Although we don’t now have conscription, the following drafts are in place:
1. The poverty/economic draft- This has been the main way that the military has been staffed since the end of the conscription draft in the early 1970's. It is now cutting a wider swath as youth in U.S. society face sharply reduced access to well-paying jobs, viable apprenticeships and financial aid to college. Of course, the military is ready and waiting to exploit the fact that youth face limited opportunities.
2. The National Guard/Reserve draft– Most of those who have signed up have been those who have really needed the monthly payment from the Guard/Reserve and thought they would stay in their state, perhaps helping out with civil disasters and doing their one weekend a month and two weeks in the summer. Now lots of Guard and Reserve units have been activated, and deployed to war in Iraq.
3. The Stop-Loss draft- Those whose term of service was supposed to end have been retained in Iraq. The different branches have been playing musical chairs with Stop Loss over the last couple years. Stop Loss is now being challenged by a lawsuit as involuntary servitude which the president lacked authority to initiate.
4. The IRR draft– The Individual Ready Reserve typically includes people who have already served in the military for four years of active duty; until recently, their on-paper eight year total commitment involved no practical requirements like going to meetings or training. During the summer, 5,600 members of the IRR were ordered to be activated and 5,000 more are slated for 2005. Over a third of the 5,600 have not shown up, as of mid-October.
5. The recruiter fraud/misrepresentation/intimidation draft- Many people end up in the military due to shady practices of the $2.5 billion a year recruitment industry. We hear from them on the GI Rights Hotline. Recruiters’ career progress is on the line to deliver bodies to the military one way or another. Systemic recruiter activity includes misrepresenting the realities of military life, outright lying, unfulfillable promises, and intimidation of those trying to withdraw from the Delayed Enlistment Program.
6. The socialization-to-militarism draft- The socialization of young people, particularly males, to accept and glorify random killing through the media of TV, movies, video games and many other channels, paves the way for them to join the military without truly informed consent.
7. Targeting-Latinos draft- Since 2001, the military has especially targeted Latinos in the Southwest. This includes both Chicanos born in the US and Mexican immigrants. The immigration issue is used as both a threat and a promise by recruiters who are even recruiting in Mexico, both near the border and in the interior of Mexico
8. High school counselor draft- Some high school counselors have long acted as adjunct recruiters. A typical scenario - a counselor at a poor high school pushes a rebellious student into the Marines.
9. Deception draft around “volunteer military”- The deceptive use of the word “volunteer” to describe the military consciously or subconsciously fools young people into joining the military. In everyday life, “volunteer” implies the power not only to freely offer one’s participation, but also to freely withdraw it. ´Even if the previous eight drafts weren't in place, the military would still be “VOLUNTARY ENTRANCE, NO EXIT”.
CCCO through its Counter-Recruitment and GI Rights programs works to oppose all these drafts, just as it opposes the conscription draft.
San Francisco activists block entrance to a military recruitment station in early February 2003.
Many people only became galvanized against the Vietnam War by the prospect of it hitting close to home – the draft. This seems to be happening again. In some ways, this makes perfect sense. The threat of the child one has lovingly raised being dragged into the clutches of the war machine to kill, die, be maimed or traumatized can move one to action like nothing else. If one isn’t an activist before, she or he becomes one. If one is already an activist, then this issue suddenly moves to the front burner, ahead of various other issues of concern. Furthermore, one is more effective working around an issue close to home, close to the heart. The draft issue is a powder keg. Politicians are willing to talk about not wanting draftees because they like the higher motivation and skill retention of a professional army, but they won't say what's obvious - that they're afraid of the social upheaval a draft could bring.
Opposition to the draft, however, doesn't necessarily challenge the racism and classism that permeate US society. The anti-war movement during the Vietnam War was the largest opposition to war in US history, but the fault lines of race and class within the anti-war movement, of who served in the military and who was able to stay out of it, rendered it ultimately incapable of prevailing over militarism. The challenge is to extend one’s sphere beyond one’s own child, then beyond conscription itself, to all those oppressed by US militarism, in the US and throughout the world. Many radical activists during the Vietnam War, aware of the unfairness and divisiveness created by relative class and race privilege, gave up their 2-S student deferments, changed the slogan from “Hell no, we won’t go” to “Hell no, nobody goes”, and burned draft cards. In relatively few cases were they drafted or prosecuted.
Michael Moore in “Fahrenheit 911”, along with promoting a draft for sons in families making over $200k, petitions Congress members to sign up their sons. The Congress members didn’t bite but it was good theater. Yet, if they actually did sign up their sons (or daughters) or pressure them to enlist, it could be just another example of the rich and powerful oppressing their own children, a tradition with a long and ignoble history. Now I love what Michael's been able to get into the mainstream, but I don’t like him colluding with the idea that it’s OK to oppress youth and offer them up to the war machine – whether they’re your own children or not.
We have a responsibility to create a just society. We have responsibility for the environmental and social consequences of our lifestyles. We have responsibility to protect the lives of our peoples, which the Bush regime, through a combination of complicity and ineptness, failed miserably at on 9/11. We don't, however, have the responsibility to help the elites figure out how to staff an imperial military.
People often express support for an institution, thinking that they can create it the way they want it. During the 80’s in California, some of my construction co-workers supported the death penalty because they thought a particular mass murderer deserved to fry for what he did. I tried to point out that the death penalty didn’t work that way – that the typical person executed was not a mass murderer but was poor, was the alleged killer of a white person, and had a court-appointed lawyer whose fees were often limited to $1,000-$1,500. Such a lawyer usually didn’t do much work defending the client, and may have fallen asleep or been drunk during court proceedings.
If you’re going to support an institution, you'd better be willing to look at how it is likely to work or actually does work. The proponents of the draft seem to fall into the same fuzzy thinking as the above-mentioned death penalty advocates. If a draft comes, they will have been part of the momentum bringing it back, but it won’t look the way they intended – it will not create equity about who dies and who doesn’t. And it sure is no way to fight against a war machine.
Also check out Rumors of a Draft in 2005?
|