Columnist Cynthia Tucker thinks so. I've heard commentator Mark Shields on the PBS Newshour make a similar observation. This is Tucker's version (my emphasis):
Military ought to draw all income levels Atlanta Journal-Constitution 04/18/04
But the U.S. armed forces are now stretched too thin to cover all the obligations brought on by our imperial ambitions. With increased levels of insurgency in Iraq, the Pentagon has been forced to concede that it cannot draw down U.S. soldiers and leave security to poorly trained Iraqi troops; indeed, more U.S. soldiers may be required. So the military has refused to allow soldiers who have completed their tours to return to civilian life. (If that isn't a draft, what is?)
It is a peculiar war on terror that requires so little sacrifice from most Americans. While the president declares this a paramount struggle against "the enemies of civilization," he knows most of us will cheer from the sidelines. He doesn't suggest we conserve fuel, reducing our dependence on foreign oil. He doesn't ask us to come up with the funds to hike military pay. He doesn't even ask us to pay for the occupation and reconstruction of Iraq; his huge tax cuts have placed that enormous burden on the backs of future generations.
Asking genuine and obvious sacrifice from the affluent is exceptionally difficult for the Republican Party. Because the party exists to comfort the comfortable. Shifting tax burdens to future generations does not contradict that. For many people, a problem deferred is a problem solved. And the affluent often prefer the near-certain but distant-in-time need to repay public debt in the future to the reality of paying taxes in the present.
3 comments:
After 5 years in the regular Army, I transfered directly into the Washington National Guard. While I happen to remain on active duty, the fact that the government can - and will - call on me: 1. If, 2. When, and 3. As often as necessary, is not lost on me.
There isn't a Guardsman or Reservist in the country who is blind to this fact; however, they may play that card when their gamble doesn't go their way. Many people join for the college money and/or out of a sense of duty to our country, but NONE of them are told "you're not subject to being activated." In fact, we have to sign-off many times that we are fully cognizant of the fact that we may be activated at any time for any duration based on the needs of the government - to include the possibility of serving longer than we had originally enlisted for and the possibility of being re-called into the service once we have "completed" our enlistment period - to include retirement. In fact, the CSA (Gen Schoomaker) was recalled from retirement.
Show me someone who has "completed" their tour - and I'll show you someone that signed their contract without reading it.
Armandt, I haven't seen anyone suggest that the extensions of the tours of duty were *illegal*. The point of Tucker's article is that the extensions amount to a draft in fact, if not in name.
The Republicans do not want to propose restarting military conscription because it opens more than one can of worms politically. But they are pursuing a foreign policy that requires more troops on a long-term basis than we currently have available.
There are other issues with the current policies, as well. The National Guard in theory has a key role to play in the case of domestic terrorist attacks, a role not compatable with massive call-ups for year-long active duty in foreign wars.And there's the larger issue of equity and shared sacrifice that Tucker's column raises.
This article wasn't questioning the legality of the extensions. It questions the policy behind them. - Bruce
Pat Tillman's death clearly illustrated why the draft is called for. His death put a recognizable face on Americas combat deaths. Armchair warriors and gung-ho politicians would have to test their views under real world conditions. The draft would seperate the volves from the sheep in wolves clothing.
Post a Comment