[lbo-talk] The Return of the Draft

Michael Pollak mpollak at panix.com
Wed Jun 2 20:20:17 PDT 2004


On Wed, 2 Jun 2004, Thomas Wheeler wrote:


> And while we don't call it a "draft", the stop-loss orders that prevent
> soldiers from leaving or retiring from the military certainly feels like
> a "draft" to some of those directly affected by it.

And it's getting more oppressive all the time. The newest foray in the "individual ready reserve" means they are now drafting people who once served in the military years ago and now aren't even in the reserve. It's taking the "voluntary" out of volunteer army. It deserves lots of publicity -- perhaps it will be one more thing convincing people not to join.

URL: http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/02/opinion/02EXUM.html

The New York Times June 2, 2004

OP-ED CONTRIBUTOR

For Some Soldiers the War Never Ends

By ANDREW EXUM

C HATTANOOGA, Tenn. Many Americans, feeling that we did not have

enough troops in Iraq, were pleased when the Defense Department

announced last month that 20,000 more soldiers were being sent to put

down the insurgency and help rebuild the country. Unfortunately, few

realized that many of these soldiers would serve long after their

contractual obligations to the active-duty military are complete. In

essence, they will no longer be voluntarily serving their country.

These soldiers are falling victim to the military's "stop-loss" policy

and as a former officer who led some of them in battle, I find their

treatment shameful. Announced shortly after the 9/11 attacks and

authorized by President Bush, the stop-loss policy allows commanders

to hold soldiers past the date they are due to leave the service if

their unit is scheduled to be deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan.

Military officials rightly point out that stop-loss prevents a mass

exodus of combat soldiers just before a combat tour.

But nonetheless, the stop-loss policy is wrong; it runs contrary to

the concept of the volunteer military set up in the aftermath of the

Vietnam War. Many if not most of the soldiers in this latest

Iraq-bound wave are already veterans of several tours in Iraq and

Afghanistan. They have honorably completed their active duty

obligations. But like draftees, they have been conscripted to meet the

additional needs in Iraq.

Among them are many of my former comrades in the Second Brigade of the

10th Mountain Division, based at Fort Drum, N.Y. In the aftermath of

the Sept. 11 attacks, I led a platoon of light infantry first to

Kuwait in 2001 and then in combat in Afghanistan during Operation

Anaconda in 2002. My men had all enlisted before the 9/11 attacks. In

Kuwait and Afghanistan, they performed flawlessly, with several

earning commendations for bravery in combat.

Yet even after two deployments to Afghanistan, and with many nearing

the end of their commitments, these soldiers will have to head to Iraq

this summer and remain there for at least a year. I remain close with

them, and as the unit received its marching orders a few called me to

express their frustration. To a man, they felt a sense of hopelessness

they know they have little say over their future until the Army

releases them.

I grew angry when my former radio operator told me the Army had

canceled his orders to return home to San Francisco this month to

start college. Another man had been due to leave the Army just two

days after the order was given, but was instead told to draw his gear

and prepare for 12 months in the desert. And as stressful as these

orders are for the soldiers, imagine what their families are feeling.

Theirs are lives interrupted by the needs of Iraq.

I wonder if I might have been affected too had I stayed at Fort Drum

until the end of my service. (Instead, I left a year and half ago to

complete my four-year obligation with a special operations unit in

Iraq and Afghanistan, and thus don't fall under the Fort Drum

stop-loss order.) I can imagine how angry and betrayed I would feel

if, having served my obligation to the military for my college

scholarship, I were told I was going to Iraq for a year against my

wishes.

Of course, I would have done whatever was asked: as a commissioned

officer, my oath of service to my country never really ends. But for

enlisted soldiers, men and women who sign on with the Army for a

predetermined period of service in lieu of commissions, stop-loss is a

gross breach of contract.

These soldiers have already been asked to sacrifice much and have done

so proudly. Yet the military continues to keep them overseas because

it knows that through stop-loss it can do so legally, and that it will

not receive nearly as much negative publicity as it would by

reinstating the draft.

Volunteer soldiers on active duty don't have the right to protest or

speak out against the policy. So my former radio operator has little

option but to quietly pack up and put college on hold. For those of us

who have seen these soldiers repeatedly face death, watching them

march off again after they should have already left the Army is

painful.

Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld continues to claim that the

military, as now structured, can meet the needs of the wars in Iraq

and Afghanistan. He is simply wrong, as the Pentagon's actions make

clear. In addition to stop-loss, the military is now activating

significant portions of the Individual Ready Reserve as part of what

it is calling an "involuntary mobilization."

The individual reserve consists of troops who are no longer expected

to participate even in regular training; the idea is that they are to

be called up only in a catastrophic national emergency. Most are

veterans recently released from active duty; others are college

students on scholarship and cadets at the service academies.

So several of my former soldiers now in the individual reserve who

have left the Army, begun new careers and have not even been serving

in reserve or National Guard units have now been told to expect orders

to return to active duty in the near future.

Stop-loss and the activation of the inactive reserve show how politics

has taken priority over readiness. The Pentagon uses these policies to

meet its needs in Iraq because they are expedient and ask nothing of

the civilian populace on the eve of a national election. This allows

us to put off what is sure to be a difficult debate: whether our

volunteer military is adequate to meet our foreign policy commitments.

Meanwhile, in the absence of this debate, the men and women of our

armed forces languish.

Last weekend, veterans of World War II were honored on the Mall in

Washington for their sacrifices. Our government should begin treating

the veterans of the global war on terrorism with a similar degree of

respect, not as election-year fodder.

Andrew Exum, a former Army captain, is the author of the forthcoming

"One Man's Army."

Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list