And the Press.
The vote is in from congress. They've voted to bring the troops home. It was a strongly emotional vote --as strong as the time they voted to send everyone into the blasted war. Bush says he'll veto their bill. There is such a gulf of understanding between all sides. I just hated watching the whole freakin' thing.
It is no secret, as Bush has pointed out, that we have "war fatigue" in this country. It's true, but I also think it's combined with a great deal of apathy in our society. Before we embrace this "war fatigue" term, we have to think about it before bandying it about as a reason to close up shop and bring everyone home.
Who has "war fatigue" more? Those who don't serve, have never served, will never serve, would never even consider serving, or those who actually serve? For the former group, their "war fatigue" is that they just want to get on with the business of living and forget about it. This group includes conservatives and liberals, the red and the blue states, those with fancy cars, and those who take buses. It includes those who sit around on Sunday TV and argue, and those who do it on the radio. It also includes those who suggest "just send in the peacekeeping troops" without realizing that they're talking about soldiers.
But for those serving, the stakes are higher. Their tours of duties have been extended, they get called back to serve again --many of them as reserves, who were never meant to take the place of professional soldiers. This doesn't even consider the "war fatigue" of those citizens in the countries where war is an everyday occurrence who have a different reason for wanting the whole thing done and over with.
It was reported this week that the Army has once again failed to meet recruitment goals. Why? Well with the backtracking of the congress and senate on both sides, the eternal hackling of the press, and also the increased violence on the ground, few would volunteer. And now we have the Neocons urging us to go further into Iran, to spread this out even more with no certain definable goal except for "bringing democracy" to them.
So we have a problem. If we're going to send more soldiers in, where are they going to come from? Shall we catch them crossing the border? Shall the INS do sweeps in sweatshops, housekeeping services, gardening companies, restaurants, acrobatic shows in Vegas? Rather than deport them, just toss them in the US Army/Marines/Navy? Could this be their first stepping stone toward citizenship?
Or perhaps we ought to consider author Frank Schaeffer's suggestion, to take a step back and look at the full meaning of service to this country. He and his co-author Kathy Roth-Douquet have suggested a mandatory 2 year service for men and women over the age of 19. Two years of service to the country --choose the military, the peace corps, the teacher corps, medical corps, VISTA, forest service or any number of programs that will help not only build our own democracy, but to bridge the disconnect that I've seen with our lawmakers who first vote for, then start to backpeddle when it comes to support. (And when I say support, I'm also talking about increased pay, more funding for healthcare facilities and services for soldiers, their families and vets).Perhaps they would not be so quick to recommend, perhaps there wouldn't have been a Wolfowitz to write Neocon theory, a cheerleader like Karl Rove had any of them served in a brutal war. Perhaps they would not wish this on any generation. Our troops are not disposable units. We need to have it so that the last President who had a son or a daughter serve wasn't Roosevelt and that service isn't seen as the last resort for people who have no options. Simply said, we have to find ways to make service to our country seen as something both necessary and honorable. If peace is a goal in our time, then everyone will have to be willing to work for it and help create it.
Posts
3 comments:
I just found out the other day that 40,000 immigrants served in the Union Army during the Civil War. I was trying to find a great uncle's regiment, and I was struck by the hundreds of German names I came across -- not just last names, but first names. There were also plenty of Irish, Scots and Scandinavians in the Union Army, and a lot of them were volunteers.
It wouldn't surprise me one bit if the Bush government started trying to draft immigrants.
I think the idea of a two-year mandatory service in the military or Peace Corps, Vista, etc. is a good one. I would have been prepared to do it (in fact, I've always regretted not joining the Peace Corps as many of my friends did), and I would be happy for my daughters to do this too, though I would, of course, be worried sick. No fair having only the poorest and most disadvantaged people doing the crap work of a country; it ought to be shared out equally.
I think it's a good idea too. Other countries have a 2 year service commitment, the US should be no different.
I find the disconnect between those who serve and those who don't to be growing. Stereotypes abound on both sides. It's time to bring the two sides closer together.
My favorite Robin Williams routine is that one where he says, 'Some men are born great, some achieve greatness, some get it as a graduation gift.' That's the president we have now, and what a great example he is for all those other privileged people and their children. Why do anything for your country when you've got so much money that you can buy your way out? Why work hard at anything when your parents can just purchase it for you?
Post a Comment