home / subscribe / donate / about us / books / archives / search / links / feedback / events
|
|
|
Democrats on the Brink: Alexander Cockburn and Jeffrey St. Clair; Innocent Lads, Depraved Killers and Predatory Priests by JoAnn Wypijewski; Torture Air, Inc.: the Road to Rendition: by Jeffrey St. Clair. Remember these stories are available exclusively in the print edition of CounterPunch. CounterPunch Online is read by millions of viewers each month! But remember, we are funded solely by the subscribers to the print edition of CounterPunch. Please support this website by buying a subscription to our newsletter, which contains fresh material you won't find anywhere else, or by making a donation for the online edition. Remember contributions are tax-deductible. Click here to make a donation. If you find our site useful please: Subscribe Now! or write CounterPunch, PO BOX 228, Petrolia, CA 95558 |
|
Other Lands Have Dreams: From Baghdad to Pekin Prison by KATHY KELLY  Today's Stories March 19, 2005 Alexander Cockburn March 18, 2005 Dave Zirin Richard Thieme John Walsh David Swanson Ben Terrall David Boyle Dorreen Yellow Bird Mokhiber /
Weissman Greg Moses Website of
the Day
March 17, 2005 Christopher
Brauchli Bill Quigley Brian Cloughley Gary Bass / Adam Hughes Dave Lindorff Jude Wanniski Alexander Billet John Ross Website of the Day
March 16, 2005 Ralph Nader William Cook Kevin Zeese Jackie Corr Alan Maass David R. Kolker Cindy Ellen
Hill Paul Craig
Roberts
March 15, 2005 Gary Leupp Dave Lindorff Greg Moses Hadas Their
/ Katrina Yeaw Alison Weir Matt Koehler Evelyn Pringle Harry Browne
March 14, 2005 Ralph Nader David Miller Stan Cox Mike Roselle David Swanson Simona Sharoni Dave Lindorff Dorreen Yellow Bird Tom Barry Website of the Day
March 12 / 13, 2005 David H. Price Noam Chomsky Laura Carlsen Stan Goff Valentina Nicoli Michael Leonardi Saul Landau
/ Sarah Anderson Joe Bageant Manuel García,
Jr. Greg Moses James J. Brittain Ben Tripp Joshua Frank Fred Gardner Walter Brasch Ramzy Baroud Christopher
Brauchli Michael Donnelly Ron Jacobs Richard Oxman Poets' Basement
March 11, 2005 Jerry Fresia Ron Jacobs Dave Lindorff William James
Martin Muqtedar Khan Kathryn Ledebur Mike Whitney Dave Zirin Website of the Day
March 10, 2005 Paul Craig
Roberts John Marc Leas, Colleen McLaughlin
and Ashley Smith Larry Birns Michael Donnelly Luis Gomez Jackie Corr Uri Avnery Website of the Day
March 9, 2005 Jeffrey St.
Clair Ward Churchill Robert Fisk Bernice Powell Jackson Mickey Z. Dave Zirin Michael Donnelly James Reiss Vijay Prashad
March 8, 2005 Paul Craig
Roberts Robert Fisk Kurt Nimmo Suzan Mazur Evelyn Pringle Giuliana Sgrena Elaine Cassel
March 7, 2005 Dave Zirin Brian Cloughley John Chuckman Mike Whitney Mark Weisbrot Fred Gardner Richard Neville Uri Avnery
March 5 / 6, 2005 Alexander Cockburn Gary Leupp Ron Jacobs Tom Reeves Jenna Orkin Tom Barry Joshua Frank Moshe Adler Jane Stillwater Omar Barghouti / Jacqueline
Sfeir Christopher
Brauchli John Pilger Raúl
Zibechi David Krieger Three Takes on Nepal Surendra R. Devkota Bhishma Karki Joseph Pietri Ben Tripp Poets' Basement Website of
the Weekend
March 4, 2005 Frederick Hudson
March 3, 2005 Pat Williams Brian Cloughley Dave Lindorff Amira Hass Greg Moses Lynne Landes Nelson P. Valdés John Ross
March 2, 2005 Saul Landau
/ Farrah Hassen Mike Roselle M. Junaid Alam Suzan Mazur Jackson Thoreau Michael Donnelly Jeffrey St.
Clair Website of the Day
March 1, 2005 Scott Richard
Lyons David Lindorff Patrick Cockburn
/ David Enders Ron Jacobs Tanya Garcia Joseph Pietri Kona Lowell Paul Craig
Roberts Website of
the Day
February 28, 2005 Gary Leupp Bill Quigley Paul de Rooij David Swanson Mario Lamo
Jimenez Emma Perez Diana Johnstone Website of the Day
February 26 / 27, 2005 Alexander Cockburn Noam Chomsky Rev. William E. Alberts Fred Gardner Gary Leupp Saul Landau Robin Philpot Yitkhak Laor Ben Tripp Justin Taylor Jack Random Rafael Renteria Jim B. Seth DeLong John Chuckman Alison Weir Richard Oxman Dr. Susan Block Poets' Basement
February 25, 2005 Roger Burbach Behzad Yaghmaian Kurt Nimmo Joshua Frank John Farley Lawrence Reichard Pratyush Chandra David Smith-Ferri Website of
the Day
February 24, 2005 Omar Waraich Brian Cloughley Tom Wright Sharon Smith Dave Lindorff Fred Feldman James Reiss
Diane Christian Website of
the Day
February 23, 2005 Werther W. John Green James Petras Conn Hallinan Joe Pietri Louis Proyect Alexander Cockburn Website of
the Day
February 22, 2005 Naseer Aruri Richard Manning William A.
Cook Paul Craig Roberts Ken Krayeske Dave Zirin Kirkpatrick
Sale
February 21, 2005 Hunter S. Thompson John Ross Ward Churchill Dr. Teresa
Whitehurst David Swanson Dave Lindorff Stew Albert Michael Neumann
February 19 / 20, 2005 Alexander Cockburn Kathleen Christison Ted Honderich Gary Leupp Don Santina Jennifer Roesch Scott Richard
Lyons Chris Clarke George Beres Harry Browne Manuel Garc'a,
Jr. Mark Scaramella Michael Donnelly John Pilger Norman Madarasz Surendra Devkota Deborah Rich Fred Gardner CounterPunch
News Service Richard Oxman Poets' Basement
February 18, 2005 Ben Moxham Dave Lindorff Larry Birns Gregory Elich Samuel Logan / John Meyers Nicole Colson Suzan Mazur Mickey Z.
February 17, 2005 Joshua Frank Paul Craig
Roberts Robert Fisk Christopher
Brauchli Dr. Teresa
Whitehurst Alison Weir Ahrar Ahmad Saul Landau Website of the Day
February 16, 2005 Robert Fisk Kevin Zeese Gary Leupp Ron Jacobs Jessica Leight Greg Moses Mark Engler Jack McCarthy Bill Christison Website of the Day
February 15, 2005 CounterPunch
News Service Robert Fisk Uri Avnery Stan Cox Mickey Z. Dave Zirin Nadia Martinez Lila Rajiva Paul Craig
Roberts
February 14, 2005 Robert Jensen Brian Cloughley Patrick Cockburn Gary Leupp Michael Donnelly Dave Lindorff Elaine Cassel
February 12 / 13, 2005 Alexander Cockburn Saul Landau Paul Craig
Roberts Patrick Cockburn John Feffer Mickey Z. Kurt Nimmo Fred Gardner Dave Zirin John Chuckman Ben Tripp Carol Norris Robert Fisk Frank / Chowkwanyun Mike Whitney Deborah Frisch Niranjan Ramakrishnan Christine TenBarge Ron Jacobs Dr. Susan Block Poets' Basement Website of the Weekend
February 11, 20055 Manuel Garcia,
Jr Kurt Nimmo Dave Lindorff Larry Birns Bill Quigley Tom Barry Jennifer Van
Bergen
February 10, 2005 Dave Lindorff Christopher Brauchli Patrick Cockburn Nicole Colson Suzan Mazur Michael Donnelly Mike Stark Greg Moses Website of
the Day
February 9, 2005 Jeffrey St.
Clair Mickey Z. John Ross Tom Barry Conn Hallinan Patrick Cockburn Steen Sohn Tim Wise Website of
the Day
February 8, 2005 Patrick Cockburn Brian Cloughley Steve Breyman Harry Browne Doug Giebel Nate Collins Dave Lindorff David Smith-Ferri
February 7, 2005 Paul Craig
Roberts Carolyn Baker Joshua Frank Mickey Z. Patrick Cockburn Mike Whitney Stacie Jonas Dave Zirin Tariq Ali
February 5 / 6, 2005 Alexander Cockburn Kurt Nimmo Joshua Frank P. Sainath Patrick Cockburn Laura Carlsen Dave Lindorff Pamela Olson Behzad Yaghmaian Saul Landau / Farrah Hassen Roger Burbach Robert Fisk David Swanson Justin E.H. Smith Cacie Hart Ron Jacobs Mickey Z. Ben Tripp Ben Sonnenberg Poets' Basement Website of
the Weekend
February 4, 2005 Brian Cloughley Bill Christison Elaine Cassel Jacob Levich Kanak Mani Dixit Ron Jacobs
February 3, 2005 Ward Churchill Sharon Smith Mickey Z. Mike Whitney Jenna Orkin Saul Landau Yitzhak Laor Dave Lindorff
February 2, 2005 David Domke
/ Kevin Coe Noam Chomsky M. Shahid Alam Richard Oxman Joshua Frank Dave Lindorff Nina Hartley Website of the Day
February 1, 2005 Joshua L. Dratel Patrick Cockburn Robert Fisk Uri Avnery Col. Dan Smith Alison Weir Alan Farago Ray Hanania Paul Craig
Roberts Website of the Day
December 22, 2004 James Petras Omar Barghouti Patrick Cockburn / Jeremy Redmond Harry Browne Richard Oxman Kathleen Christison Website of the Day
December 21, 2004 Greg Moses Dave Lindorff Chad Nagle Dragon Pierces
Truth* Patrick Cockburn Seth DeLong Ahmad Faruqui Paul Craig
Roberts
Hot Stories Alexander Cockburn Subcomandante
Marcos Norman Finkelstein Steve Niva Dardagan,
Slobodo and Williams Steve
J.B. Sheldon
Rampton and John Stauber Wendell
Berry CounterPunch
Wire Cindy
Corrie Gore Vidal Francis Boyle
Subscribe Online
|
Weekend Edition A Draft By Any Other Name...Is Still WrongExposing the Coming DraftBy TOM REEVES Articles in CounterPunch and elsewhere recently have given opposite views on whether the return of the draft is likely--and even whether a draft should be opposed at all. Noam Chomsky (Feb. 2) takes the strong pro-draft stand: "I have always favored a draft," he has said. Jacob Levich did a good job (Feb. 4) of decimating Chomsky's a-historical assertion that colonial wars have never been waged successfully with conscripts--always with professional armies and mercenaries Chomsky would say that's what we have in Iraq--and he would be right. Chomsky would also say it was the draft that pumped up student protests in Vietnam, and he would also be right there--partly (see below). Jacob Levich is also right to warn that a 'bipartisan effort' is now in the works to restore the draft, and that whatever its appeal as a movement-booster, it should be anathema to all Americans who love freedom and hate war. But the buzz and anti-buzz about the draft continues. On the one hand, headlines blare that the military draft is coming back. Internet sites and alternative media continue to promote this idea. Several articles have appeared in the mainstream press recently: "The Return of the Draft" in the February Rolling Stone, with a decidedly anti-draft stance; and "The Case for the Draft," in the March Washington Monthly, a pro-empire centrist magazine. Yet during the election debates in November, both Bush and Kerry categorically denied that either would allow the activation of a draft. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld dismissed the idea as ridiculous, noting that he has always supported the 'volunteer army' which he helped create and is now "reorganizing." Most major media called the 'draft scare' pure urban myth created by internet rumor mills. The Selective Service System website states categorically that there are no 'active plans' to revive a draft. What are Americans to think--especially those now in their late teens and twenties who would be subject to forced military service if a draft were re-enacted? Jacob Levich has done a good job in CounterPunch of outlining the basic elements needed to answer this question. He clearly reveals the practical reasons to think a draft is likely soon, and the ethical and political reasons to oppose it. But most young Americans remain skeptical that a draft is likely. They would agree with most pundits that politicians of either party seek at all costs to avoid raising the specter of a revived draft. As Phillip Carter and Paul Glastris said in the Washington Monthly article: "...the draft (has) replaced Social Security as the third rail of American politics." For most progressive young Americans the draft seems far off, compared to more pressing issues like the War in Iraq or erosions of civil liberties by the ever-expanded Patriot Act. Young Americans need to be clear: both parties--Republicans and Democrats--are parties of war and parties of empire. Likewise, both ideological stances--liberal and conservative--rationalize and memorialize war and empire, each with a particular bent and emphasis. Both parties and both philosophies have vested interests in the powers and accouterments of the warfare state--that is, the total, modern state, with absolute control over its citizens in the name of national interest and security. Conservatives are more divided over empire than liberals--with strong libertarian and isolationist wings. In some ways, liberals have been the worst offenders--the most brutal war mongers, the most thoroughgoing statists. They always have been: Woodrow Wilson, FDR, Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, to name a few. JFK laid it out: "ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country." The Bay of Pigs and Kennedy's order of the assassination of Diem in Vietnam reveal Kennedy's leanings. Nixon was more cautious than Kennedy--and certainly than Johnson--in pursuing war and empire. Nixon dared to recognize China; it was he who finally extricated the U.S. from the Vietnam War, and it was under his Presidency that the draft was finally ended. (It should be noted that he was pushed into these measures by a massive, well-organized anti-war and draft resistance movement.) Both parties have promoted the growth of the U.S. empire throughout the 20th century, and both have supported colonial wars, though these were disguised as the cold war, and now as the war against terrorism. However much leaders of both parties protest--especially Bush and Rumsfeld who send Americans to die in Iraq-- now that the U.S. is firmly set on an imperial course, this will provoke wars which will demand more and more fighters. Even if Democrats were not so weak and disorganized, they would do little to staunch the bloodshed. John Kerry favored enlarging the army and sending more troops to Iraq. The liberal spokesman for the Democrats, Chairman Howard Dean, always emphasizes that Democrats favor a strong military as much as Republicans. As Charles Moskos, a prominent military sociologist, said just after 9/11, "We're in a new kind of war. It's time for a new kind of draft." The Washington Monthly piece calls it "a 21st century draft." As outlined in the now infamous Selective Service memo of February 2003, or by Moskos in his articles, and now by the Washington Monthly proposal of March 2005, it will be a much more efficient draft, more universal (women as well as men), more complex and more sinister. It will demand that all young people be registered in a massive data base that details their skills and strengths, their weaknesses and dalliances. It will know who are linguists and who are likely good at killing--and it will draft them to relevant tasks. It will draft for 'homeland security' as well as duty overseas--for border guards and immigration cops--and for computer nerds and medics. It won't even be called a draft--more likely, 'national service,' 'homeland service,' or 'universal service.' Yet when grunts are needed on the battlefield--it is likely that some form of the lottery will still be there to call them up. Donald Rumsfeld, who has indeed always pushed the concept of a 'citizen army,' has also always seen a lottery for compulsory service as a back-up for national emergencies. Already in 1965, at a national conference on the draft, Rumsfeld predicted, "We will move eventually toward a volunteer army, but above (that system) it would be necessary to have a compulsory system as a secondary mechanism for raising manpower." The final method, he said, "for choosing those for combat, when not enough volunteers are at hand, should be the most random." March 5, 2005 . (For these and other early quotes from Rumsfeld, see Sol Tax, THE DRAFT, University of Chicago, 1967.) Sooner or later, as in the year of the first 'survivors' show, the televised draft lottery of 1970, young people will crowd around their sets again--maybe even singing the Three Dog Night hit, "One is the loneliest number"--as they did thirty-five years ago. During the Presidential campaign, before Rumsfeld's most recent fevered denials that a draft was in the offing--and before the Republican leadership shot down the liberal version put forward by Rep. Charles Rangel and others as a form of anti-war maneuvering, Family Circle magazine--largest circulation women's journal in the country, with 23 million readers--published Jan Goodwin's, "Could Your Child Be Drafted?" (July 2004.) Charles Moskos--who has advised four Presidents on military manpower--was quoted: "We cannot achieve the number of troops we need in Iraq without a draft." The conservative Republican, Texas Congressman Ron Paul, was even more blunt: "Don't listen to what they say. Look at what they do. The Administration says 'no' to the draft, but what we've gotten from the Pentagon says 'yes'." Family Circle sent out a press release, including recommended actions for parents to work against a draft and to keep their children from being drafted. More and more nations are abolishing conscription. France, Portugal, Spain, the Czech Republic, Austria and many other countries abolished their programs of military or national service in the late 1990s and since 2000--most also abolishing mandatory registration. Over 100 nations--the majority--now have no form of draft or registration, and about 15 have registration but not a draft (like the U.S.) Surely the U.S. would not buck that trend. Or would it? It is the U.S., not France or China or any other power, which claims that it alone must "bring freedom to the world." This would not be the first way in which the U.S. is out of step, and out of touch, with most of the rest of the world.
The 'urban myth' about the draft's return keeps getting stronger. Some rather hard military facts persist as well. The Washington Monthly piece put it starkly: "America can remain the world's superpower. Or it can maintain its current all-volunteer military. It can't do both." As Moskos predicted, the U.S. was unable to maintain its forces in Iraq without a draft. The Pentagon used what many have called the 'backdoor draft.' Since early 2004, at least 40,000 national guardsmen and reserves (who make up 40% of those serving in Iraq) were compelled to remain on active duty after their tours were up--and more will soon face a similar fate. Most of those affected were told officially that their enlistment was extended until 2031! This is called 'stop loss,' an emergency measure which the President is supposed to be able to use only when Congress has declared war or a national emergency--which is not the case. Yet--like many other evidently unconstitutional measures--stop loss is a reality. In addition to the extensions of duty for the national guard and reserves, more than 5,500 of the 'Ready Reserves' have been called up for Iraq or Afghan duty. These are older men and women whose regular reserve duty has ended--including grandmothers and grandfathers edging toward retirement, as well as men and women raising families and pursuing careers who had no idea they would be called again to duty. Perhaps the worst sign for those who would keep an all-volunteer force while trying to run an empire is that military recruitment has suffered tremendously as the U.S. media feature stories about young Americans killed in combat. The Army and Marines have failed to meet their recruitment quotas, with the army running about 40% short. The most telling statistic is that 35-40% of those who enlisted in 2003 did not complete their first term--because of health or mental health problems, drug testing failures, desertion, or application for conscientious objector status. (See "Decoding Rumsfeld" by Bill Galvin, Nov. 4, 2004, on the NSBICO.org website; and summary of information on the draft, compiled by Chris Lombardi, Central Committee of Conscientious Objectors website, objector.org). All three military academies, which saw an increase in applications after 9/11, now draw smaller pools of those seeking admission--ranging from 15 to 25% fewer as of early this year. (Baltimore Sun, Feb. 8, 2005) ROTCs are also shrinking--even as Republican student groups have called for their revival. If the ROTCs and the Academies cannot provide enough officers, the services will be in serious trouble very soon. (See Baltimore Sun, "Applications Decline," pages 1B and 4B, Feb. 8, 2005.) As many U.S. military experts had previously warned, Jane's Intelligence Digest--an independent and internationally respected review-- stated emphatically in August 2003 that "U.S. forces are severely overstretched." Jane's pointed out that "traditional calculations for every soldier deployed" indicate that two soldiers are needed in reserve and one is needed for "mainland supply and support." Congress today limits the active military to 1.4 million men and women. In fact, the Pentagon has illegally increased that number by as many as 30,000 without the pre-requisite Congressional approval, as Stan Goff pointed out in the on-line journal, From the Wilderness, more than a year ago ("Will the U.S. Reopen the Draft?", February 27, 2004). Carter (a former Army officer and writer on national security issues) and Glastris, in the Washington Monthly, make a compelling case that the number of men the U.S. can keep for more than a year in a hostile country during an occupation is only about 80,000 under current conditions. They argue that Iraq demands--as the Army Chief of Staff at the outset of the war claimed--at least 250,000, and that the U.S., as 'superpower' needs to have a 'surge force' of about 500,000 ready at all times for the hotspots around the world. The U.S. has military bases in 130 countries, as well as secret installations in Israel, Austria, England and elsewhere. More than 300,000 of the 482,000 soldiers in the U.S. army are deployed abroad--21 out of 33 regular army combat units were overseas (according to Goff). This alone should require, according to the Janes formulary, 900,000 reserve and support soldiers! Yet the U.S. military presence abroad doesn't stop there. The Pentagon will not release exact figures, but marines, air force and various special forces are scattered across the globe. Besides those in Iraq (more than 150,000 in early 2005, and Afghanistan (nearly 10,000), and other regular combat-ready troops in the former Yugoslavia, in Korea, and in Europe, there are a dozen special forces operations and military commitments in Haiti, Cuba (Guantanamo), West Africa (with ECOWAS), Sudan, Okinawa, the Philippines, Columbia (where U.S. special forces virtually control the local military), Georgia, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan and elsewhere. Complications in any of these arenas could suddenly require more U.S. forces. In Korea, the U.S. is committed by treaty and Congressional action to up to 700,000 troops if the South is attacked by the North. And what if the U.S. decides it needs to take out North Korea's nuclear capabilities, unleashing a full-scale war there? Then there are the other 'axis of evil' nations the U.S. has indicated are worthy of invasion--Syria and Iran. These may not be invaded tomorrow, but as President Bush has said, "Presidents may never say never." By early March, Bush had given Syria a May deadline to withdraw completely from Lebanon or face--what? Invasion? The Pentagon has recently appeared to bow to recruitment and retention pressures and to criticism within the military about troop levels. In mid-March 2005 it issued press releases predicting that the force in Iraq may be reduced later this year. Even if this occurs--and if the insurgency does not grow as a result--U.S. foreign policy under Bush will require more troops sooner or later. An empire cannot be built, and certainly not expanded as Bush has promised (under the guise of "spreading freedom") without imperial troops. The Project for a New American Century (PNAC) is a bipartisan group of top ranking military and political figures including current White House advisors. In 1995, PNAC laid out a strategy and time-line for a new U.S. foreign policy agenda post-cold-war which now seems chillingly prescient. In February this year, PNAC issued an open letter to Congress and the President in which it denounced the "warping" of roles for the National Guard and the reserves. "Reserves are meant to be reserves," its letter stated. PNAC quoted General James Helmly, Chief of the Army Reserves, "The Reserves are a broken force" due to over-use in Afghanistan and Iraq. PNAC went on: "We are close to exhausting U.S. ground forces," even without assuming other battlegrounds. The solution? "Increase the size of the active duty army and marine corps--at least 25,000 per year over the next ten years." The Washington Monthly article insists this greatly under-states the need--which is not for an increase in the active-duty army (which requires a thirty-year commitment to volunteer soldiers and their families), but for a large short-term surge force which could only be guaranteed by conscription. Failing that, the Pentagon
goes on with its conscription of national guard and reserves
for longer and longer re-enlistment periods, calling the elderly
Ready Reserves, and even "reactivating the disabled"--that
is, severely wounded soldiers. (Al Jazeera--Dec. 2004--has estimated
that deaths and permanently disabled soldiers in Iraq have already
deprived the U.S. of about 9% of its manpower there.) The U.S.
gets around the maximum troop levels by depending more and more
on extremely expensive private armies (security consultants--that
is outright mercenaries) for as much as $1,500--$2,000 per day
(TIME, April 12, 2004, article by Michael Duffy). When asked
in writing by fifteen Democratic Senators last year after the
grisly slaughter of Blackwatch mercenaries, Rumsfeld admitted
there were at least 30,000 armed consultants in various capacities
in Iraq alone. A listing of the more than 200 deaths among these
consultants reveals South Africans, Filipinos, Chileans, Egyptians,
Arabs and others, as well as U.S. citizens. Quite a few special
forces officers who completed their duty in Iraq understandably
refused to sign up again (despite incentives of as much as $100,000),
in order to be re-hired out of uniform for the same killing duties. DESERTIONS ESCALATE: IS EXILE STILL AN OPTION? Meanwhile, refusal to answer the stop loss recalls and other forms of what the military calls 'desertion' are also growing. The Pentagon admits there were 5,500 desertions last year--and some feel this figure is far too low. As many as 1/3 of the 4000 Ready Reserves called back for duty last year applied for exemption or simply did not show up. (New York Times, Nov. 16, 2004, article by Monica Davey.) Although the option to apply for conscientious objector status for active-duty soldiers has not been withdrawn (as it was during the Gulf War), the military is making the process so onerous that some of the hundreds applying have simply given up--and gone AWOL. Lawyers for the National Lawyers Guild task force on G.I. Rights have launched a John Doe lawsuit against the Department of Defense on the stop loss orders. Those who run the GI rights hot-line report tens of thousands of calls from those facing stop loss orders as well as others, seeking help to avoid combat duty in Iraq and Afghanistan. The U.S. has been so short on combat troops, it has almost never punished the deserters, and has mostly stopped giving them dishonorable discharges--in some cases, returning to duty those apprehended or who return. Field commanders in Iraq who complain about this--deserters are hardly the best soldiers--are told that manpower gaps are so extreme that the crisis demands this new policy. Potential AWOL soldiers in Iraq should be wary of this policy, however. It is not universal and may change. There have been a hundred or more active-duty soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan, possibly many more, who have turned up in various other countries, ranging from Syria to Britain--especially in Canada --where at least seven have applied formally for refugee status, and have been allowed to stay pending reviews of their cases by the Immigration and Refugee Board (IRB). Toronto and Vancouver peace activists and lawyers representing some of the U.S. deserters claim that twenty more are about to begin the process, and possibly a hundred U.S. soldiers and their families are in those cities, still underground. (Toronto Star, January 9, 2005) Yet G.I. and draft counselors for the groups in the U.S. working in these areas warn that things have changed drastically for those who would 'dodge' military service by going abroad. Bill Galvin of the Center on Conscience & War (CCW) says he feels the Canadian government is not likely to grant refugee status to deserting U.S. soldiers. Some counselors believe that the new U.S. agreements with Canada and other countries, specifically the Smart Border Declaration (SBD) make it unlikely that deserters or conscription resisters will not be extradited. A look at the Canadian embassy website reveals that SDB and other joint border measures are designed to keep deserters (and others, such as suspected 'terrorists') from leaving the U.S. in the first place. Random checks inside the U.S. are already in place a few miles before many border crossings. Advance passenger notifications at airports screen those who would leave the U.S.--measures never taken before in U.S. history. Both Canada and Sweden--the two countries which took the bulk of the 55,000 U.S. military deserters and draft refusers during the Vietnam War--have now agreed they will not automatically exclude extraditing such people. Even those who travel to Canada before they are called to avoid registration or draft--or merely to escape the militarism now rampant in the U.S.--face much more difficult processes for permission to live and work. In the Vietnam days it was still possible to apply within Canada for landed immigrant status. Changes in Canadian immigration laws in 1975 and 1995 require that applicants for immigrant status return to the home country to do this, and the process can take many months. The U.S. has gotten ever tougher, say draft and military counselors, on Vietnam-era deserters and draft resisters who did not apply for President Carter's amnesty and who are now Canadian citizens, often refusing them permission to visit the U.S. for funerals and other family crises. Some draft counselors say flatly, "Forget Canada." Yet many Canadian peace activists insist that Canadians will never tolerate their government's refusal to shelter those who refuse to fight in what they see as immoral wars. Most mainstream articles--like "AWOL in America " by Kathie Dobie in the March Harper's, downplay desertions to Canada and assert that Canada will not grant refugee status as during the Vietnam war. Toronto Attorney Jeffry House, who represents five deserters, says that while simple refusal of military service is not enough for refugee status, other strong arguments exist. "Being forced to fight in what Canada sees as an immoral and illegal war ought to be grounds for refugee status," he says. While he believes the refugee boards are currently taking orders from the foreign affairs office which signed the SBD agreements with the U.S., he is confident that on appeal in Canadian courts, many Americans who refuse to fight will be welcomed, as they were during Vietnam. (Interviewed by the World Socialist Website, Feb. 10, 2005). Prime Minister Paul Martin, who has begun to buck the U.S. more and more, commented in December, in response to a reporter's question about the U.S. deserters' cases before the Refugee Board: "We don't discriminate when it comes to refugees. Canada is a nation of immigrants." This was taken so positively by those who support the U.S. resisters, that Martin's office issued a disclaimer that his remarks should not be taken as referring to specific cases before the IRB. (Ottawa Sun, Dec.30, 2004.) Lee Zaslofsky, who became a Canadian citizen after fleeing the draft during the Vietnam War, is one of the many former U.S. resisters now involved in the War Resister Support Campaign. "It's not just leftists here who support resisters--we are drawing from labor unions, the churches, a cross section of Canadians. About 23,000 have signed our petition to support those who resist the U.S. wars. The U.S. resisters receive a warm welcome as they travel all over Canada--Quebec, Nova Scotia, British Columbia, small towns as well as cities. People are offering to house them--sometimes in out-of-the-way places. To those who say, "forget Canada," he says, "Yes, there is the risk they may not be able to return. Maybe there won't be a Watergate and a turn-around in the U.S. as there was for us. But who knows--things do change over time. I say to those who come here, you must accept that you are becoming a Canadian, and be prepared for not going back. Brandon Hughey (one of those whose case has yet to be heard by the IRB) just celebrated his first anniversary in Canada. He is alive, working and safe, and he is not killing anyone. If it comes to the crunch and the appeals are exhausted, the Federal Immigration Minister will have to decide, and the Canadian public will not stand for our government to become the enforcement arm of the Pentagon." If he's right, the growing trickle of U.S. resisters in Canada could become a flood. (Telephone conversation with the writer, March 16, 2005.) It is now clear that there is already a severe military manpower crisis. If the U.S. continues or increases it's involvement in Iraq, which is nearly certain, and if there is U.S. involvement in other areas, the crisis will become extremely urgent, requiring an urgent solution--one that Rumsfeld and others dislike, but which even Rumsfeld has always said may become necessary in an emergency: "Conscription, compulsion of any sort, under our Constitution, requires a demonstrated need." (At the Presidential Commission on the draft at the University of Chicago, December 1966.) Many military experts believe that need has already been fully demonstrated. As Carter and Glastris put it in the Washington Monthly: "...there's the serious ethical problem that conscription means government compelling young adults to risk death, an to kill--an act of the state that seems contrary to the basic notions of liberty...In practice, however, our republic has decided many times...that a draft was necessary to protect those liberties." They and others believe the time has come again to overcome such ethical |
