Untitled Document
ne of the favorite fantasies of right-wing talk radio and Fox "News"
is that only Bush-hating liberals oppose the Iraq war and additional U.S. military
incursions into the Middle East or wherever.
Yet, it is the March issue of the Washington Monthly, a magazine with a liberal
Democratic audience, that makes a case for the draft as the only way "America
can remain the world's superpower."
The authors, Phillip Carter and Paul Glastris, take it for granted that America's
duty is to make the rest of the world conform to America. They regard this virtuous
calling to be so great that a draft is a small price to pay.
The authors have no doubts that Americans exist in order to serve other countries.
American lives, limbs, and treasure are required to rectify whatever happens
elsewhere that fails to meet with our leaders' approval.
Since other countries are not willing "to share the burden" by sacrificing
their own citizens and resources, America must build a large enough army to
do the job on its own.
The authors try to devise a draft proposal that "would create a cascading
series of benefits for society" by instilling "a new ethic of service"
among college-bound youth. Before America's youth could be admitted to college,
they would first have to serve either in the military or in tutoring disadvantaged
children or by helping old folks, or in homeland security by guarding ports.
The authors admit that few would choose combat abroad, but say that some would
out of patriotism. They write: "Even if only 10 percent of the one-million
young people who annually start at four-year colleges and universities were
to choose the military option, the armed forces would receive 100,000 fresh
recruits every year."
The authors mean "nationalism," when they say "patriotism."
True patriots would oppose the Jacobin agenda of Global Cop and demand that
America stick to its founding principles. But the authors cannot imagine America
without "its mantle of global leadership" and regard enslaving youth
in the service of the state as a small price to pay.
The authors are probably correct that the neoconservatives' war plans cannot
be undertaken with the present U.S. force structure. The neocons thought that
in Iraq all the U.S. had to do was defeat a poorly equipped army. They overlooked
that insurgency is a different kind of fighting.
To deal with insurgencies requires vast numbers of troops and practices that
tend to produce more insurgents. When the draft army fails to impose America's
will on the world, we will hear the case for "usable nukes."
The U.S. desperately needs to escape from Iraq before America is sucked into
a wider conflict that will necessitate a draft. Once the Bush administration
has created so much instability in the Middle East that a rising Islamic revolution
is afoot, the stakes will be too high for the U.S. to be able to withdraw.
What might save America from further neoconservative miscalculations is the
collapse of the U.S. dollar. A country dependent on foreign financing, as is
the U.S., cannot fight wars that its foreign bankers do not approve. I suspect
America's foreign bankers would let the U.S. fight itself into a deep hole before
pulling the plug. It is the best way the world has of getting rid of us.