America needs hundreds of thousands of soldiers to ensure that Iraq does not become a terrorism-exporting hotbed of extremism in the heart of the Arab world. It needs American arms and legs, which will be strewn across a dusty desert highway halfway between Amman and Baghdad. It might need some young men to count down to the day when they can see their girlfriends and then be told a few weeks before that day that it needs them for another few months. Who will bear this burden? Whose head will a rocket-propelled grenade blow off tonight and who will sleep soundly in his dorm room?
We are at the edge of a crisis. Currently, there are not enough troops in the United States military to fully secure Iraq. There aren't enough troops in NATO to fully secure Iraq. It's possible that, as the old World War One poster demanded, we want you for the job description above.
George W. Bush denies the need for more troops altogether. The coalition of the poor and the patriotic in our current army is doing a fine job according to him. Sure, his Secretary of Defense blithely says that we'll give the generals whatever they ask for. But when General Eric Shinseki said before the war that we would need hundreds of thousands of troops to effectively secure Iraq, he was promptly shown the door.
The Democrats need to define themselves, so they make-believe that their plan is drastically different. But they too have ducked the burden question. For them, the answer is that our allies should bear more of a burden in Iraq. But this would be a symbolic gesture on the part of our allies. In truth, they have nowhere near the numbers of troops that are needed. Yet perhaps, as the popular phrase goes, it would "take the targets off our backs." But is it really so clear that this resistance is against only an American occupation? Is the history of other European nations in the Middle East so gloriously remembered that they would be welcomed with open arms?
The idea of bringing in troops from other countries is the easy alternative that the Democrats have been giving since the "official" war ended. Despite the Democrats' dubious assertion that more foreign troops will quell the violence, the fact remains that even if we had some foreign troops, we still would not have the raw numbers of troops to secure the country.
This is where you come in. According to the UFB wire service, Republican Senator Chuck Hagel of Nebraska recently asked, "Why shouldn't we ask all of our citizens to bear some responsibility and pay some price?" Hagel argued that reinstating the draft would force "our citizens to understand the intensity and depth of challenges we face." The possibility of a draft is not some nightmare created by liberals to scare people out of Iraq. Rather it is a very real possibility that needs to be debated, especially on college campuses.
It seems like just yesterday our leaders led us to believe we could impose our will anywhere in the world while only the poor and patriotic would have to sacrifice. Sure, we have to bear the burden of watching it all unfold. Soldiers' deaths are lamented in grocery stores, shopping malls and classrooms across our country. But aside from the occasional "oh dear" comment while watching the evening news, we have been kept perfectly out of harm's way. Perhaps if we all shared the burden, we would all have to think long and hard about whether we were prepared to take a year's vacation in the Sunni triangle.
In fact, Senator Hagel outlined precisely this risk when he spoke to CNN before the war began. "[My experience in war] makes me more judicious in how we use American power, understanding how important it is to have allies and to have friends that will be with us through the long term. The clarity of purpose of our objective is important...But all too often, I think, in the great debates over war, it is always a matter of an intellectual debate or a policy debate, with very little focus being on the humanitarian or the human dynamic of people losing their lives."
Well, let's take Senator Hagel's test. Are we clear about our purpose in Iraq, or has our mission seemed to change with the facts on the ground? Are our allies with us, or have they faltered or been bulllied? Have we considered the human dynamic of the burden borne by some, or simply prayed that it might not have to be borne by all?
If I were wounded, if you were paralyzed, if I ran into an old roommate of mine who lost his leg to a roadside bomb in Tikrit, these decisions of war and peace would be colored very differently. We couldn't even be bothered to honor the dead and wounded during our Super Bowl. We might miss someone having her bra ripped off.
The vast majority of my generation, myself included, has been all too happy to play poker and video games while thousands of miles away our generational cohorts are living in hell. It is almost hard to believe that the brave troops who have been dying in Iraq are the same age as the students throwing Frisbees on the green. Because they bear the burden of our safety and we reap the benefits, there is almost no generational bond. But now those who sit safely on college campuses might be needed. I know that I would hesitate to march proudly into the Sunni triangle. How many others who now curse the French and wave the flag would also hesitate? Some of these issues have been hashed out before. The only difference is, now the country might really need you. Are you ready? It looks like the debate has shifted.
Joshua Skolnick '04 was a Herald opinions editor.
