An All-Volunteer Army?

As the whole Cindy Sheehan media circus continues, we've seen hundreds of attempts to smear the poor woman. People have attributed dozens of quotes to her that she never said and many other quotes have been taken way out of context. However, no matter how hard Rush Limbaugh (listen here: http://mediamatters.org/items/200508160009) and other neo-cons ( read here: http://mediamatters.org/items/200508170008) try to destroy her credibility, Cindy Sheehan won't go away. As proof that America is catching on, the President's approval rating is below Richard Nixon's during the height of the Watergate scandals - and, largely, its because of the immense unpopularity of the war in Iraq.

While most of the neo-cons on air, online and on Fox News have resorted to smearing Sheehan, some people (mostly callers and regular folks) have tried to actually make a point. The point is this: Casey Sheehan, Cindy's son who died in Iraq, actually volunteered to join the army. However, I want to challenge the concept of an all-volunteer United States Army.

Surely, many people - tens of thousands - have completely volunteered to join the army. However, tens of thousands does not make an "all-volunteer army." The term is exclusive. The army, in fact, is not an all-volunteer army at all. In reality, the army is merely an indication of all that is wrong with this country: the fact that there is a two-tiered system of citizenship. The army just goes to show the populace that John Edward's assessment, that there are two Americas, is absolutely true. Some people volunteer for the army and some people see no other alternative to escape poverty, see no other way to pay for college or no other immediate job opportunities.

Like I said, some people choose to join the army. Others, if they want a better life, have no other choice. Ask many people who join the army why they did it and they'll tell you it offerred them a way out. It offers them a second chance on life - a chance to get an education. A chance to get a good job someday and leave behind chaos at home or in the nieghborhood. Until the US can fix these problems, the army will never be an "all-volunteer" institution.

Perhaps the previous paragraph would seem like a great paragraph to insert in a recruit pamphlet. However, people should not have to gamble their life to have a chance at success; it should come standard to all US citizens as a birthright. If all people are "created equal" we must give all people the same opportunities to succeed. By allowing potential troopers to sign their lives on the dotted line, these people may very well be giving up that opportunity if they're killed or maimed, physically or otherwise. At the very least, the army can't be considered all-volunteer if that's the only reasonable choice most people who enlist have to eventually be comfortable in life.

Furthermore, of those who actually volunteered to join the army and didn't do it because they saw it as the rode to opportunity, how many were properly warned about the realities of this war when they signed away their lives? How many recruiters actually tell the whole truth? How many people join the army thinking they'll get to see the world and all its wonderful places, only to see the desert and pump gas into tanks all day? Most people who join the army are told one thing and are assigned something completely unalike what they were told they would do. Especially when recruiters earn money and advancement opportunity depending on how many people they recruit, people should expect deception when they walk into a recruiting office. However, how can people expect 16 and 17 year olds to detect such deception? If someone volunteered for the army, that does not mean they volunteered for their lives to be sent spinning down a Las Vegas game of Roulette.

Of course, it's important to have a strong military defense. However, the invasion of Iraq was a betrayal of the trust people should be able to place in their government. Soldiers who do not support the war are often criticized because they 'voluntered.' However,if the country lied about the pretext for war, these soldiers didn't volunteer at all; they were coerced. As people who are willing to gamble their lives for the protection of the United States, a very noble deed, their trust should be matched by the government. They should only defend this country when there is absolutely no other choice. Lives are too precious, too fragile, to be spent otherwise.

The army is not an all volunteer army; it is simply a volunteer army for some people and the only way for most others to ever truly join the America the President speaks about. The large body of soldiers who joined the army to defend this country, only to fight an offensive war for constantly changing reasons, is an example of the depths of corruption this Presidential Administration is willing to use in order to achieve its goals. However, the America that the President speaks about is not America. America, as polls indicate, is not a country that takes well to wasting the lives of troops. America does not take well to killing tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis under false pretenses. Cindy Sheehan and her Gold Star Mothers have brought to this country a convergence of the real America and the Bush administration's lies and confusion. Now that America is starting to learn about what has been going on, America can right its wrongs. Understanding that the army is not an all-volunteer army will only serve to bring about justice sooner.

Pat Robertson

I'm going to preface this peice with the fact that I am not an expert on the Christian political right of this country. I won't pretend to know its real leaders from people who were formerly its leaders or consider themselves leaders yet really hold no real political weight. However, when people talk about Christian Conservatives, one of the leaders of the Christian Right that I know of who seems to get more attention than most is the very dubious Pat Robertson of the 700th Club. Far be it for me to describe why I call him dubious, I'll let his words speak for himself:

"There was a popular coup that overthrew him [Chavez]. And what did the United States State Department do about it? Virtually nothing. And as a result, within about 48 hours that coup was broken; Chavez was back in power, but we had a chance to move in. He has destroyed the Venezuelan economy, and he's going to make that a launching pad for communist infiltration and Muslim extremism all over the continent.

You know, I don't know about this doctrine of assassination, but if he thinks we're trying to assassinate him, I think that we really ought to go ahead and do it. It's a whole lot cheaper than starting a war. And I don't think any oil shipments will stop. But this man is a terrific danger and the United ... This is in our sphere of influence, so we can't let this happen. We have the Monroe Doctrine, we have other doctrines that we have announced. And without question, this is a dangerous enemy to our south, controlling a huge pool of oil, that could hurt us very badly. We have the ability to take him out, and I think the time has come that we exercise that ability. We don't need another $200 billion war to get rid of one, you know, strong-arm dictator. It's a whole lot easier to have some of the covert operatives do the job and then get it over with."

I'm not digging far to find this quote. He said it on air, tonight on the 700th Club. August 22nd will hopefully mark the beginning of the end of what little credibility he had left. If any reader considers themself a devout Christian, I hope you don't align yourself with these sorts of views. I'm no theologian, but I can safely say that Jesus did not advocate political assassinations.

Check out the video at http://mediamatters.org/items/200508220006

Got Food?

People have very little understanding about the full implications of poverty in this country. They don’t understand there are over 36 million Americans who may or may not have food for the day; more than 13 million American children are food insecure (Children’s Defense Fund). People aren’t aware of the number of adults who forgo a meal to make sure their children can eat. These parents, often derailed as lazy or stupid, are really American heroes that deserve respect and a ladder to help them have the resources to become even better parents.

People don’t understand poverty because it seems so vague and even remote. Not many see the 1.35 million children who are homeless, or their 500,000 families (Institute for Children and Poverty). People have their own preconceived notions of what it means to be poor. There are as many ways to describe poverty as there are people subjected to its daily pitfalls. However, they’re left as the dust and decay of the wealthiest nation to ever exist on the face of Earth, casualties of corporate warfare by the greedy on regular America. With the poverty bug an epidemic while health insurance costs inflate rapidly and costs that burden the middle and working classes significantly more than others, people should be wary. People must innoculate the country from poverty through policy change. Hunger and homelessness cannot be eradicated without direct action by the government. The longer America skirts the issue, the more people will suffer and die because America’s complacency.

Poverty is not a necessary evil; it's a moral dilemma. When ignored, this moral corruption of our most basic ideals allows this country to forsake one of its founding principles: to be created equal. Without a home, a good school, tools for parents to find good jobs and access to health care, America is not the country it proclaims. To be the land of the free and the home of the brave, America must act boldly and act now to bring poverty to a close.