Because You Never Asked

(Author's note: I put this essay up at a time when "Attila" Bush and his bloodthirsty hordes prepare for the military action "Iraq 2003". Many people are now beginning to understand what the "volunteer army" is all about. This is something yours truly understood long ago and embodied in this essay, which was written during our first recreational foray into Iraq.)

Sometime during our military intervention in the Persian Gulf, I found myself sitting home watching a collegiate basketball game on TV. While the nation wrestled with the risks and propriety of such an action, the insulated, adolescent ambiance of an American college campus seemed totally impervious to such transcendent acts of destruction in the "global economy". Bare chested, beer sotted louts painted their bodies with their school colors, delectable cheerleaders strutted their creamily rounded butts while the local heroes slam-dunked the home crowd into a frenzy.

Most conspicuous here was a new edition to this familiar slice of Americana --- the teams were sporting a small American flag on their uniforms, in symbolic support of our troops in the Middle East. Within a matter of days, all the teams were doing the same. Of all the hundreds of teams and thousands of players that participate in collegiate athletics, I only heard one voice raised in protest: a basketball player at Seton Hall University refused to wear the flag, claiming such death and destruction went against his beliefs as a Catholic. Lest this person be construed as some kind of Benedict Arnold, it's relevant to note that the protester was a native of Italy, who immediately left Seton Hall and returned home. Obviously, this Catholic university has a notably different concept of Catholicism than its former Italian athlete.

This is not to imply that the students of the Gulf War era rotundly supported the war. They were too busy trying to sort out their own hormonally anxious lives to be bothered with it all, and nobody was bothering them. When I contrasted this to my own collegiate days, which were played out in the agitated, uproarious environment of the Vietnamese conflict, this lack of involvement seemed perverse and unnatural. Was my generation so different from these intellectually vapid children?

It would be nice to think this was the case, that my generation was more involved, more aware, that somehow or other there was a profundity in our minds that far surpassed the kids we now see drinking themselves into an idiotic stupor at "Spring Break". If there is some truth to such an assertion, it is much more attributable to circumstance than intellect. Unlike the Gulf War generation, who's extended adolescence was not disturbed by the geo-political economics of the day, they tried to rip my generation away from our comfortable, middle class existence. They wanted us to trade the partying football weekends for something a lot less "groovy". We rebelled, not because we were different from today's students, but because life was good and someone was forcing us to abandon it. As a by-product of these circumstances, our political consciences were raised and we were made to grow up a bit.  Would today's fraternity man leave his keg of beer behind and get out in the desert to fight the Arabs? The powers to be never wanted to deal with such motivational problems, especially from our more accommodated classes, again. Eureka! The "volunteer army".

The evening mentioned above spent jocking it up in front of the tube, was the day I realized what the volunteer army was all about.

I'm not against the volunteer army, but I think its inception should change the way we look at the use of our military might.

Before going any further, it should be said that the "volunteer" army is a misnomer. A volunteer is someone who donates their time and effort for a particular end. None of our current soldiers have volunteered. They, like the rest of us, have looked at their options in our society, and, for such customary reasons as pay, benefits, security, and maybe even vocation, decided to be soldiers rather than garbage men, firemen, junk bond salesmen, secretaries, comedians or unknown essayists. They, unlike the conscripted soldier, are not doing their patriotic duty; they are doing their jobs. This is a subtle distinction that changes the dynamic of our military use. Our "volunteer" army should more correctly be called our army of "mercenaries".

(Author's note: Having now been bombarded with a decade or so worth of additional stimulus experience since this essay was written, I've come to realize that the following material is somewhat naïve. To ever expect the United States to use its military might for anything other than its imperial self interest, is something like a catcher turning to an umpire and saying the pitch he just called a strike was really ball four, take your base. I will present it anyway, just to suggest how the world could really be if its power brokers could ever learn what's good for us.)

I am less reluctant to use a "mercenary" army than an army of conscripts grudgingly giving a few years of their lives in service to their country. This does not mean I'd send them willy-nilly into harms way for frivolous reasons. However, with a million people in danger of starvation in Somalia, is the threat of a few American casualties in a country ruled by a handful of undisciplined thugs, too much to ask in saving these people? Is the threat of a small amount of American blood sufficient enough reason to allow a few gangsters to terrorize Haiti forever? With a few hundred thousand corpses already littering the ground in Bosnia, and a formal peace agreement now in place, isn't the cessation of such carnage important enough to risk a few American lives?

With the use of a "mercenary" army, I have no trouble sending them out to do such noble things.

For all of you "national interest" freaks who can't buy into such concepts, I say the following: our "national interest" is always served by doing good deeds. Unlike all of our military adventures of the past, which were nothing more than imperial incursions of blatant self-interest, the post Cold War era has brought forth some interesting opportunities for altruistic endeavor. If they can be carried out with a small amount of risk, and we have created a soldiering class through a "volunteer" army, I see no reason not to send them. It's not just in our interest to do what we've done in Somalia and Haiti, and what we are about to do in Bosnia, it's good long-range policy. Everyone knows who's done them right and who's done them wrong. Good Karma is an incalculable resource.

For those of you who are still not convinced, if you are one of those "not one drop of American blood" kind of guys, even if that drop comes from a mercenary doing his or her job instead of a conscripted patriot, I can accept such a policy, but only under one condition: if we are going to continue to use taxpayer money to fund a "volunteer" army that we are so reluctant to use, even in noble minimal risk situations, then I say let's spend lots less money on it. Let's face it; if the sovereignty of this nation is really in danger, they'll need the rest of us anyway.

back to the Table of Contents

Email: JerryG@postcman.info