i hope you get drafted, i hope you carry a gun, when you come back with no arms or legs, then you can say boi, that was fun

[Guest guest]

Think the Days of the Draft are Gone? Think Again

By William Rivers Pitt

t r u t h o u t | Perspective

 

September 11th., 2002

 

2.7 million Americans served in Vietnam. 304,000 of them were wounded in action,

and over 75,000 of those were disabled by their injuries. As of Memorial Day

1996, there were 58,202 names listing the dead on the long, black monument in

Washington, D.C. Approximately 1,300 men are still listed as missing in action.

 

There are many reasons why people today believe a return of the draft is an

absurd notion, and the names on that wall stand tall among them. The insanity

loosed within this nation when the draft was violently resisted stands as

another firebreak against a politician who would call for its reinstatement.

Finally, most Americans believe that our armed forces are utterly invincible and

fully capable of performing any task we require beyond our borders. We stomped

the Iraqi army, then the largest mechanized military force in the Middle East,

like a roach back in 1991. After 9/11, we rampaged through Afghanistan.

 

Perceptions of this nature are dangerous, for they depart in the extreme from

reality. Though we have succeeded in shattering the Taliban and dispersing al

Qaeda in Afghanistan, the threat posed by the latter terrorist organization

remains quite real. The cultural and tribal rifts in that region will require a

massive American military presence there for years. The recent car-bomb attack

against Afghan president Karzai demonstrates that, though we may have won all

the battles over there, we are far from obtaining victory.

 

The situation in Afghanistan will be a significant tax on our military

resources, unless we walk away as we did once the Soviets disengaged in 1989,

which would guarantee once again the rise of fundamentalist chaos there. We have

reaped that whirlwind once already, and will hold this tiger by the tail until

further notice. The fact that we have significant interest in the natural

resources of that region only cements the permanence of our presence there.

 

Our military presence in the Middle East is already significant, and has begun

to steadily increase since George W. Bush began to beat the war drum against

Iraq. A great many officers ensconced in the Pentagon strongly believe our

military will become far too stretched in a repeat engagement with Saddam

Hussein's forces. Few will say openly that they fear defeat, and in fact the

odds of losing a war in Iraq are extremely low, but the pressure placed upon our

military resources will be extreme. The potential for explosive upheaval in the

Middle East should we make war on Iraq further exacerbates this. Between

Afghanistan and Iraq, the United States military is reaching mission capacity.

 

Still, the idea that forced military conscription of Americans could come again

is a foolish one, right? Consider the following scenario. Consider it with

particular care if you have loved ones of battle age.

 

In July of 2002, the Defense Policy Board - a powerful group at the ear of the

Bush administration which is chaired by former Reagan Defense Department

official Richard Perle - listened with great interest to a briefing delivered by

emissaries from a Rand Corporation think tank. The thrust of the briefing was

that Iraq should be considered only the beginning of a protracted campaign to

bring " regime change " throughout the Middle East. The final Powerpoint slide of

this presentation described " Iraq as the tactical pivot, Saudi Arabia as the

strategic pivot, (and) Egypt as the prize. "

 

Though the administration publicly distanced itself from this briefing once it

was exposed on the pages of the Washington Post, going so far as to have Bush

abase himself before visiting Saudi royalty, the substance of that talk surely

resonated within the men calling the shots in D.C. Richard Perle is a famously

hawkish neo-conservative who springs from the same think-tank environment as

those who gave the briefing. The same goes for Secretary of Defense Donald

Rumsfeld, and his assistant Paul Wolfowitz. These three men, along with the

like-minded Vice President Cheney, are fully in control of both American foreign

policy and the War on Terror. A plan for region-wide regime change in the Middle

East suits them right down to the ground.

 

Noted MIT professor Noam Chomsky, writing earlier this week in the Guardian,

described the invitation for more terrorism on American shores should we attack

Iraq. " No one, " wrote Chomsky, " including Donald Rumsfeld, can realistically

guess the possible costs and consequences. Radical Islamist extremists surely

hope that an attack on Iraq will kill many people and destroy much of the

country, providing recruits for terrorist actions. " The inference is clear: Any

war in that region will spawn a new and terrible wave of attacks against this

country. Any war in that region is exactly what the terrorists are hoping for.

Fresh recruits, soaked in rage, will flood into their open arms.

 

The unfolding scenario becomes all too clear. If Bush is pressed into a conflict

with Iraq by the hawkish, neo-conservative platoon of Perle, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz

and Cheney, America will once again suffer a catastrophic terrorist attack. The

result will be the complete militarization of America, complete with martial law

and the suspension of all basic civil rights. Bush administration officials have

already admitted as much when asked in the last year what the result of another

attack would be. In the aftermath, the Bush administration will assuredly push

for that region-wide regime change in the Middle East, but will be unable to do

so without forced conscriptions, because the military is currently stretched too

thin. Thus, the draft.

 

Farfetched? Hardly. In fact, there is presently in Congress a bill pending that

would require military conscription. H.R. 3598, entitled " Universal Military and

Training Act of 2001, " was introduced into the House of Representatives on

December 20th, 2001 by Republican Rep. Nick Smith of Michigan. It calls for the

drafting of all able-bodied men between the ages of 18 and 22 for military

service. Even those who would declare themselves conscientious objectors would

be drafted and given military training, whereupon they would be peeled off to

another Federal agency to serve out their term.

 

At present, H.R. 3598 languishes in the Subcommittee on Military Personnel,

which is attached to the House Committee on Armed Services, because it has not

enjoyed enough support in Congress. Should the very real scenario described

above unfold, and specifically if this nation is attacked again, H.R. 3598 could

well enjoy an incredible surge in popularity.

 

There is a high-stakes game of poker being played within the administration

right now. The hawks are holding aces and betting them. Around them on the card

table, the chips are piled high. Your sons, your brothers, your friends are in

that pile. So are you, if you are of age. After September 11th, the only thing

likely to happen is that which was previously inconceivable. Could war in Iraq

bring terrorism back to our country? Could it lead to a regional conflagration

in the Middle East? Could it lead to another draft?

 

I wouldn't bet against it.