NVA: US Military Draft Probably Isn’t Coming Back

August 26, 2004

Rick Jahnkow argues in May’s _Nonviolent Activist_ that there’s a “Decreased Like­li­hood of Draft”:http://www.warresisters.org/nva0504‑3.htm. There are many aging paci­fists that have become obsessed late­ly with the idea that com­pul­so­ry mil­i­tary ser­vice might be return­ing to the Unit­ed States. For exam­ple, I’ve watched the leader of one annu­al anti-draft work­shop pre­dict the draft’s immi­nent return year after year, in ever more excit­ed terms and won­dered what evi­dence this orga­niz­er has seen that I haven’t.
Jahnkow watch­es this issue as much as any­one in his work for the San Diego-based “Com­mit­tee Opposed to Mil­i­tarism and the Draft”:http://www.comdsd.org/ and he’s been watch­ing the hype build as he’s become more skeptical:
bq. Warn­ings about an impend­ing draft have been cir­cu­lat­ing on the Inter­net for months now. Some are tying a pos­si­ble draft to the elec­tion and pre­dict­ing with bold cer­tain­ty that con­scrip­tion will be intro­duced in 2005… The ener­gy that�s been gen­er­at­ed on this top­ic has been both amaz­ing and, I have to con­fess, some­what seduc­tive to anti-draft orga­ni­za­tions like the one for which I work.
Most of the peo­ple I’ve seen get excit­ed by a pos­si­ble return of the draft were in their teens back in the Viet­nam War era. Their orga­niz­ing some­times seems almost nos­tal­gic for the issues of their youth. They’re try­ing to save the cur­rent gen­er­a­tion from hav­ing to go through the same trau­ma. But the old­er activists’ anti-draft work is often patro­n­is­tic and self-congratulatory, for it does­n’t take into account the fact that younger Amer­i­cans don’t need saving.
The bot­tom line truth is that the Pen­ta­gon sim­ply could­n’t rein­state the draft. Jahnkow cites a recent CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll that found that 88 per­cent of peo­ple 18 – 29 oppose a return of the draft. There would be mass may­hem if the draft returned. While some young men would sure­ly obey, a huge per­cent­age would active­ly defy it. Even if only 10% dra­mat­i­cal­ly refused, the sys­tem would break down. This is a gen­er­a­tion raised in a post-punk cul­ture and many of its mem­bers aggres­sive­ly ques­tion author­i­ty. They were raised by par­ents who lived through the six­ties and saw wide­spread lies and abuse of pow­er, includ­ing the Viet­nam War and the Water­gate scan­dal. The media mythol­o­gy around sixties-era rad­i­cal­ism has kept us from real­iz­ing that there’s a base­line of every­day rad­i­cal­ism today that far over­shad­ows much of what was going on thir­ty years ago. The Pen­ta­gon knows this bet­ter than the peace move­ment does.
It’s not the only nos­tal­gic protest­ing this gen­er­a­tion is engag­ing in these days and I’ve com­pared revived orga­niz­ing around “phone war tax resistance”:http://www.nonviolence.org/articles/000230.php to “recy­cling dead hors­es.” I agree with Rick that today’s teens and twenty-somethings have real issues which we need to address. He says it so well:
bq. The lat­ter point leads me to the sec­ond rea­son why I have some neg­a­tive feel­ings about the cur­rent con­cern over the draft: Much of the anx­i­ety is com­ing from peo­ple who are ignor­ing the more press­ing prob­lem of aggres­sive mil­i­tary recruit­ing, which, among oth­er things, dis­pro­por­tion­ate­ly affects non-affluent youths and peo­ple of col­or. In essence, there has been a draft for these individuals�a pover­ty draft�and yet it has drawn rel­a­tive­ly lit­tle atten­tion from anti­war activists. There is a race and class bias reflect­ed in this that needs to be seri­ous­ly con­sid­ered and addressed by the gen­er­al peace movement.
“Here’s the link to his arti­cle again”:http://www.warresisters.org/nva0504‑3.htm
h4. Related:
* Last Novem­ber we pub­lished a provoca­tive arti­cle by paci­fist Johann Christoph Arnold argu­ing that “A Mil­i­tary Draft Would be Good for Us”:http://www.nonviolence.org/articles/000231.php and a per­son­al response piece I wrote about how the “pres­sures of a mil­i­tary draft”:http://www.nonviolence.org/articles/000231.php can force an eigh­teen year old to real­ly think hard about issues of war and peace.
* Non​vi​o​lence​.org has guide to issues of “mil­i­tary con­scrip­tion and con­sci­en­tious objection”:http://www.nonviolence.org/issues/conscience.php. We also watch issues of the “peace movement”:http://www.nonviolence.org/articles/cat_peace_movement.php, and tend to high­light gen­er­a­tional issues a lot.
* The Urban Leg­end debunkers at Snopes​.com have tracked and researched the “draft fear emails going around”:http://www.snopes.com/politics/military/draft.asp. They don’t think a draft is com­ing back and any time soon, cit­ing many sources.

Attacks a sign of our success

October 28, 2003

I could­n’t believe it when a friend told me the news. In the wake of four coor­di­nat­ed sui­cide attacks in iraq that killed 30 and injured 200, Pres­i­dent George Bush claimed that the “attacks were mere­ly a mark of how suc­cess­ful­ly the U.S. Occu­pa­tion is going”:www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/10/27/sprj.irq.main/index.html :
bq. “There are ter­ror­ists in iraq who are will­ing to kill any­body in order to stop our progress. The more suc­cess we have on the ground, the more these killers will react — and our job is to find them and bring them to justice.”
This is real­ly his way of explain­ing away all oppo­si­tion to the U.S.: peo­ple must be jeal­ous of all we have and all we do. But maybe iraqis con­tin­ue to be angry that we invad­ed their coun­try; maybe they’re angry that we’ve only rein­stalled many of their gen­er­als and many of Sad­dam’s hench­men. Maybe they’re wait­ing for a democratically-elected coun­cil. I’m sure many iraqi’s con­demn yes­ter­day’s bomb­ings. But it’s still way too ear­ly to declare vic­to­ry in the war of iraqi pub­lic opinion.

Betting on Terror

July 29, 2003

The news sites are all report­ing a Pen­ta­gon plan to bet on future ter­ror­ist activ­i­ty (BBC). It’s report­ed as a stock market-style sys­tem in which sucess­ful pre­dic­tions by investors would win them money.
Some­one at the Pen­ta­gon has read a lit­tle too many books about the infi­nite wis­dom of the free mar­ket. There are those who have a reli­gious faith in the pow­er of unfet­tered cap­i­tal­ism, who posit it as a kind of all-knowing, self-correcting God. With the input of enough self-interested actors, the truth can be dis­cerned. I’d argue that stock mar­kets are more like blogs (the highly-linked New York Times ver­sion of the arti­cle), with every­one rush­ing to make the same links (Asso­ci­at­ed Press).
The truth of the mat­ter is that recent intel­li­gence laps­es have been the result of polit­i­cal med­dling in the col­lec­tion and ana­lyt­i­cal process­es. When the boss wants a cer­tain result (proof of weapons in Iraq, proof of Al Qae­da links), then the group-think pres­sure to con­form will warp the sift­ing process. A stock market-style sys­tem for pre­dict­ing ter­ror would be about as accu­rate as a poll of CNN and Fox News watch­ers – it will tell you what every­one thinks but it prob­a­bly won’t tell you the truth.

Why We Mourn and Protest

December 19, 1998

Many of the this week’s crit­ics of the Non­vi­o­lence Web are insist­ing that the U.S. needs to bomb Iraq in order to secure a future world of peace: “Are you an idiot? We need­ed to bomb them. 

Oth­er­wise, many more INNOCENT will even­tu­al­ly die at the hands of Sad­dam Hus­sein. Some­times force is nec­es­sary in order to pre­vent much greater vio­lence later.”

This is the log­ic that has brought us to most vio­lent cen­tu­ry in human exis­tence. War is always fought for peace. Acts of vio­lence are always jus­ti­fied with the argu­ment that they’re pre­vent­ing acts of vio­lence lat­er. We kill for peace. And they kill for peace. And as the death count ris­es we build even big­ger and smarter bombs. And they build even big­ger and smarter bombs.

The million-dollar cruise mis­siles going into Iraq aren’t go to hurt Sad­dam Hus­sein. He’s safe­ly ensconced in one of his pres­i­den­tial palaces watch­ing CNN (mean­while, Pres­i­dent Clin­ton sits in the White House watch­ing CNN as well). All the cruise mis­siles in the U.S. Navy won’t bring Hus­sein from power.

It is the peo­ple of Iraq who feel the sting of these bomb­ings. Just as it is them who have born the brunt of eight years of bru­tal sanc­tions. It is the moth­ers who suf­fer as they watch their chil­dren die because even the most basic med­ical sup­plies are non-existent. It is the lit­tle ones them­selves suf­fer­ing as yet anoth­er wave of bombs come rain­ing down on their world from that abstract enti­ty called the “U.S.”

Amer­i­can pol­i­cy is wrong pre­cise­ly because we are at war not with Sad­dam Hus­sein, but with the peo­ple of Iraq-the cit­i­zens, the poor and meek, the down­trod­den and hurting.

The nation of Iraq will always have the tech­ni­cal know-how to build weapons of mass destruc­tion. Because the fact is that we live in a world where every indus­tri­al­ized nation with a cou­ple of smart chem­istry Ph.D.‘s can build these bombs. India and Pak­istan just a few months ago set off nuclear weapons, we know Israel has a stock­pile. We can’t just bomb every coun­try with a weapon of mass destruc­tion or with the capac­i­ty to pro­duce such a weapon.

We need to build a world of real peace, of peace between nations built on the rule of law, yes, but also on rec­on­cil­i­a­tion. We need for­eign pol­i­cy that rec­og­nizes that it is the rulers and the poli­cies of oth­er nations with which we dis­agree. That rec­og­nizes that it is wrong to ever con­demn a whole peo­ple for the excess­es of their leaders.

A num­ber of U.S. peace groups have called for today to be a day of Nation­al Mourn­ing and Protest. Let us gath­er to remem­ber that we stand togeth­er in sol­i­dar­i­ty with those suf­fer­ing in Iraq. Let us vig­il qui­et­ly and then yell out loud­ly that war to end war is wrong.

End the Sanc­tions. Stop the Bomb­ing. Declare peace with the Iraqi People.

Ohio Protests Open National Debate on War

February 19, 1998

Pro­test­ers in Colum­bus, Ohio upset a pro-war pro­gram with top Clin­ton Admin­is­tra­tion offi­cials Wednes­day after­noon, ask­ing them tough ques­tions at a live CNN “Town Hall” meet­ing and giv­ing the anti­war move­ment its first seri­ous nation­al publicity.

Sec­re­tary of State Madeleine K. Albright and Defense Sec­re­tary William S. Cohen were in Colum­bus to gain pop­u­lar sup­port for the war and to build the myth of a nation­al con­sen­sus for a U.S. attack on Iraq. They were both sur­prised and embar­rassed by the jeers and tough ques­tions they received from audi­ence mem­bers. Some audi­ence mem­bers held up signs and chant­ed “We Don’t Want Your Racist War” while one ques­tion­er asked why the U.S. was­n’t con­sid­er­ing force against oth­er coun­tries vio­lat­ing human rights such as Indone­sia in it’s slaugh­ter of East Tim­o­rese (when Albright start­ed hem­ming and haw­ing, her accuser shot back “You’re not answer­ing my ques­tion, Madame Albright.”)

The Colum­bus dis­senters are the top sto­ry in the major news­pa­pers and media pun­dits are start­ing to pub­licly doubt polls show­ing over­whelm­ing sup­port for mil­i­tary action.

Sam­ple Let­ter to Media

To the Editors,

With today’s sto­ry about an Ohio audi­ence jeer­ing Sec­re­tary of State Madeleine Albright, it’s time for MS-NBC to give some cov­er­age to the groundswell of grass­roots oppo­si­tion to anoth­er Gulf War. If you had been mon­i­tor­ing the “Iraq Cri­sis Anti­war Home­page,” the events in Colum­bus would not have been a sur­prise. In fact, 82 oth­er demon­stra­tions are cur­rent­ly list­ed here.

In addi­tion to events list­ings, the Anti­war Home­page has analy­sis, action alerts, ideas for orga­niz­ing and links to major non­vi­o­lence groups. A project of the Non­vi­o­lence Web, home to dozens of U.S.-based peace groups, it is a cen­tral source for anti­war organizing.

Please con­sid­er pro­fil­ing all the great work being done around the coun­try to stop anoth­er sense­less war.

In peace,
Mar­tin Kelley
Non­vi­o­lence Web

Reporters vis­it­ing the “Iraq Cri­sis Anti­war Home­page” would not have been sur­prised by the turnout in Colum­bus. A huge grass­roots anti­war move­ment has grown in the past month. The Non­vi­o­lence Web’s email box is being flood­ed with great state­ments, let­ters to Clin­ton, action ideas and just plain wor­ry about anoth­er war. The Anti­war Home­page’s list of upcom­ing protests spans the world, list­ing the Colum­bus event along with over sev­en­ty others.

But lit­tle of this orga­niz­ing has got­ten the nation­al media. Most of the online media have put togeth­er sec­tions promis­ing “com­plete cov­er­age,” and sport­ing bravu­ra titles like “Show­down with Sad­dam.” But look at the cov­er­age and you’ll see only fluff pieces about the brave boys on the air­craft car­ri­ers or furrow-browed analy­sis of U.N. Sec­re­tary Gen­er­al Kofi Annan’s doomed search for a diplo­mat­ic settlement.

fter Ohio, the nation­al media will have to start rec­og­niz­ing the wide­spread dis­sent among Amer­i­cans. Some progress is being made. YAHOO, the most pop­u­lar site on the net, has list­ed the Anti­war Home­page in its list of Iraq Cri­sis resources. And a top news orga­ni­za­tion is work­ing on a pro­file of the Non­vi­o­lence Web to appear with­in a few days (keep­ing look­ing for an announcement).

But we must all do more. Write and email the nation­al media to include cov­er­age of anti­war actions. Demand that a link to the Iraq Cri­sis Anti­war Home­page be includ­ed in their “Com­plete Cov­er­age” of the cri­sis. A sam­ple let­ter to MS-NBC is includ­ed here, but please write your own and show them that dis­sent has spread past the Colum­bus audi­to­ri­um and is fol­low­ing them across the internet!