|
Support the draft…for
politicians and bureaucrats.
Those involved in statecraft recently came out in force
to complain about being forced to serve the State in tough times. Being
US emissaries in Iraq is a “potential death sentence,” a member of the
Foreign Service
sobbed” during what Yahoo News described as “an emotional meeting in
Washington with senior State Department officials.” I have “post
traumatic stress disorder” after being posted there for a year, another
whined. Who will take care of our children if we (gasp) die protested
yet another fair-weather stooge for the State.
An all-too-small segment of the political class knows,
now, how soldiers and their families feel when subjected to back-door
drafts in the form of indefinitely extended tours of duty; now they know
what most taxpayers feel about a war that has helped plunge the country
into debt, and has contributed to the
devaluation of the currency, and the sapping of savings and
retirement plans. Ordinary Americans, after all, don’t have hefty, free
pensions and perks for posterity, like those enjoyed at the State
Department.
The taxpayer, the ultimate boss, is sidelined when he
protests policies over which he ought to have the final say. State
officials kick and scream, and their bosses set up a hearing. (Or was it
a healing circle?) Against this background, anti-war advocates seized
upon the Foreign Service’s ferment of discontent to score anti-war
points. Compassion—misplaced compassion—for the undiplomatic diplomats
was the order of the day.
Having expatiated against the illegal, immoral and
unconstitutional Iraq war from
its inception, I’d recommend a different course of action in
furtherance of freedom. For one, crying for the carping consular staff
is a bad idea. They seem to want to enjoy the favors of office without
bearing the burdens—to pick and choose those policies they are prepared
to promote.
Creating a risk-free workplace for the already
privileged government employee will do nothing to curb the State’s
endless exploits. Coddling its recruits won’t place a dampener on
government’s callous, confiscatory practices. The riskier the stakes
faced by the political class, the better. Let as many of them as
possible shoulder the consequences of the Iraq policy. Force more of the
state’s pen-pushing laptop bombardiers to the empire’s fronts. Then,
perhaps, will we witness policy changes that percolate down to The
People.
Speaking of “the dark side of rule,” and what we call in
error “the troops” when we mean soldiers, military men, conscripts (a
troop is “an armored cavalry or cavalry unit consisting of two or more
platoons and a headquarters group”): Republican representatives are
forever broadcasting their love for the brave men and women of the
military. But where was the love, pray tell, when not long ago, Sen. Jim
Webb (D-Va.)
proposed “an amendment forcing the Pentagon to give troops more time
off between deployments”? Republicans, who are always professing
solidarity with our soldiers, promptly defeated the measure. The
proposal, moreover, was not meant to defund the war, but was intended
merely to provide soldiers with much-needed respite from the Iraqi
inferno.
I have a soft spot for Sen. Webb. The junior senator is
a defecting Republican who served in the Reagan administration as
Secretary of the Navy. When I first began writing against the war for
WorldNetDaily.com, he had e-mailed me in approval and sent along some of
his own anti-war editorials. Sen. Webb’s motives for safeguarding our
soldiers are beyond reproach: love of country and kin. The Senator comes
from a military family; he himself is a Vietnam veteran, son of a World
War II warrior, and father to a marine fighting in Iraq. According to “ThinkProgress,”
Webb’s son had a brush with death in Iraq in 2006.
Leading the retinue of Republicans who opposed Webb’s
proposal was the mummified McCain who’s taken a vow of victory with
respect to Iraq—Sen. John McCain, “the top Republican on the Senate
Armed Services Committee, has made winning in Iraq the focus of his bid
for the presidency.”
Not that he’s any less unsavory than the Republicans,
but it’s hard to argue with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid when he
quipped that “most of my Republican colleagues are much more concerned
about protecting their president than protecting our troops.”
© 2007 By Ilana Mercer
WorldNetDaily.com
November 16
|
