|
Some people have questioned my motives for introducing legislation to reinstitute the military draft and requiring alternative national service by young people who cannot serve.
In brief, my bill would replace the existing Selective Service law to establish a system in which all American men and women, as well legal permanent residents, aged 18 to 26, would be subject to compulsory military service or alternative civilian service. The President would determine the numbers needed and the means of selection. Deferments would be limited to those completing high school, up to the age of 20, with no exemptions for college or graduate school.
There are some who believe my proposal is really meant to show my opposition to a unilateral preemptive attack against Iraq by the U.S. Others believe that I want to make it clear that, if there is a war, there should be a more equitable representation of all classes of Americans making the sacrifice for this great country.
The fact is, both of these objectives are mine. I truly believe that decision-makers who support war would more readily feel the pain of conflict and appreciate the sacrifice of those on the front lines if their children were there, too. I don't make too much of the fact that only four members of the 107th Congress, which voted overwhelmingly in favor of war with Iraq, had children in the military. That is only a symptom of a larger problem, in which it is assumed that the defense of our country is the sole responsibility of paid volunteers.
But what if I am wrong in my desire for peace and in my doubts that Iraq is an imminent threat? If President Bush, the Congress and other supporters of an invasion are right and war is inevitable, then everyone who loves this country is bound by patriotic duty to defend it, or to share in the sacrifice of those placed in harm's way.
The disproportionately high representation of the poor and minorities in the enlisted ranks is well documented. Minorities comprise 35 percent of the military and Blacks 20 percent, well above their proportion of the general population. They, along with poor and rural Whites do more than their fair share of service in our ground forces. Yet the value of our foot soldiers is demeaned by those who promote the unproven notion that high-tech warfare will bring a quick and easy victory in Iraq.
I fear that the Bush administration's apparent determination to invade Iraq could thrust us into all-out war, perhaps a religious war, in the Middle East. I do not share Defense Secretary Rumsfeld's certainty that the U.S. has the capacity to defeat Iraq and North Korea in quick succession. Most dismaying is the absence of any discussion of the potential loss of life and the principle of shared sacrifice--in both the military and economic spheres.
In fact, the administration is using the rhetoric of war while engaging in politics as usual. While deploying thousands of troops to the Middle East, the President is promoting $600 billion in additional tax cuts which will primarily benefit the most affluent Americans, those whose sons and daughters are least likely to set foot on the sands of Iraq.
If objections to his economic proposal are "class warfare," as the President has said, then President Bush himself has started the war.
### |
