Waging War (1/16/2007)

Three weeks ago many of us celebrated the birth of the prince of peace.  But this New Year is likely to see more of the war’s grim reaper than of the prince of peace. Contrary to the Iraq Study Group recommendations and the will of the majority of Americans, who want to reduce troop numbers in Iraq, President Bush plans to increase them.  His joint chiefs of staff and other high-ranking military officers also have opposed a troop surge, so some have been replaced or are caving.  Bush finally admitted we are not winning in Iraq, but interprets the Democratic election victories as a call to find new ways to win in Iraq, not as a call to reduce our Iraq involvement and bring our troops home. Bush offers more of the same -- stubbornly fixated on escalating the Iraq war rather than focused on finding a diplomatic solution.  He still wants to continue down the path of what is probably the worst mistake in American history.

Real war is not a John Wayne movie.  War is deadly and, now, costs billions.  It requires more than a flag or yellow ribbon on a car, a lapel flag pin, platitudes, and a tough guy pose. Remember Bush’s so-called macho refrain to the insurgents to “bring ‘em on.” 

Then remember that Vice President Cheney supported the Viet Nam war, but managed to avoid service, saying he had other priorities.  If a war is worth fighting, then the president and the congress should be willing to enact a draft and a tax to support and pay for it.  And, Americans must be willing to make real sacrifices.

Currently, to meet recruitment goals for an all-volunteer army, enlistment standards have been lowered.  A draft would provide a large pool. Draftees have served bravely and nobly in many wars, including World Wars I and II.  Everyone of age should serve.  No excuses, no deferments. Fewer students from the elite colleges enlist now than ever before, and New York Congressman Charles Rangel points out that our combat troops come primarily from the poor and middle class.  The initial draft call-up should be the gung-ho, saber-rattling people. They’re easy to find.  For example, right-wing political commentator Ann Coulter could go to the head of the line to serve in the Middle East.  She called for invasion of the hijackers’ countries to , “kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity.”    And, just to set the record straight, Iraq had no involvement in the 9/11 attacks; 15 of the 19 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia, the country cozy with the Bush family.  Does Coulter want to invade Saudi Arabia?  Bush’s daughters Jenna and Barbara could serve in Iraq instead of partying throughout South America.  Give them the chance to be heroes.

Those who are against war, because killing people who have not harmed us goes against their principles, can still serve.  Instead of in combat, they can work here and help rebuild communities, such as those destroyed by Hurricane Katrina.   Thus, everyone contributes and lives by his or her conscience; warmongers go into combat; pro-peace, pro-diplomacy people serve here.

But our young people should not carry the whole load.  The rest of us should pay a war surtax.  If we choose war, then we, not future generations, should pay for it. No need to hold bake sales or ask for donations in order to equip our soldiers. Real patriotism in war requires that everyone serves, everyone pays.  Perhaps that might make us more careful to use diplomacy.  Tragically, Bush scorns diplomacy; tragically he continues to ignore the wishes of the electorate and of many of his own advisors. 

- Judith Kohler

Commentaries Home