CAN WE TALK:
WAR, PATRIOTISM AND SOCIAL INEQUALITY
By Aubrey W. Bonnett, PhD
On January 10, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld signed orders
directing 35,000 more soldiers to the Persian Gulf, even as the nation
prepares to celebrate the national holiday of the man of peace, Martin
Luther King. Both events fall against the backdrop of a bill introduced by
Representative Charles Rangel on January 7th, which would reinstate the
military draft to ensure, states Rangel, that the fighting forces should
more closely reflect the economic makeup of the nation.
All these events somehow had a nostalgic ring and brought back, with a
mighty force, many emotions and controversies: war, peace, patriotism,
dissent, the emasculation of social programs, and the fairness of any
conflict that would disproportionately call upon the lowest segments to bear
most of the pain and sacrifices involved in armed conflict.
First, let me hasten to state that I am no pacifist and that I am firm
believer in the positive and uplifting benefits that the armed forces of the
United States have bestowed on many Americans, especially its minority
citizens and immigrants. As a former college dean at a campus in the
California State University system, the ROTC programs – army, air force and
marines- reported to me, and I was able to see, first hand, how over 70
percent of our nation’s officers are trained and the mutual benefits of
having them on a university campus, interacting with their college peers and
being influenced by university and military instructors alike. Indeed where
would my hero and the great American, Caribbean American, be now had it not
been for CCNY’s ROTC program that took an average (c) student and molded him
with the necessary traits which later would transform him into a national
hero, statesman and treasure. He is a true testimonial to the immigrant and
American dream.
Some would argue that the armed forces, especially after President
Truman’ s executive order banning segregation, and essentially in the last
twenty-five years, have had more of a salutary and emancipatory effect on
immigrants and minority citizens than have the other institutions in civil
society. Without a doubt. And therein lies the rub, for while the military
provides these opportunities, the voluntary army has a disproportionate
percent of its members (approximately thirty per cent) who are minorities,
and an equally larger number drawn from the lower socio-economic groups in
our society.
And so it seems that citizens, who are excluded from participating
effectively in the other social institutions because of earlier, varied
social problems, are destined to find a livelihood in the military because
their other options are limited. Noted social critic and commentator,
Michael Eric Dyson, had observed earlier in relation to the Gulf War, “That
the racial condition is sufficiently desperate to funnel thousands of black
youth into the volunteer armed forces is a stinging indictment of the
persistent lack of opportunities that haunts the lives of millions of black
and brown youth.” In this regard Rangel’s bill attempts to adjust this
situation and would apply the draft to all men and women between the ages of
18 to 26. Exemptions would be granted to allow graduation from high school,
but college students would have to serve and those citizens with impairments
would be asked to provide community service. To the supporters of the
voluntary army and those who argue that the poor fight better, the
Congressman and Korean veteran states that the rich should also be
given a chance, for he continues…”I truly believe that those who make the
decision and those who support the United States going into war would feel
more readily the pain that’s involved, the sacrifice that’s involved, if
they thought that the fighting force would include the affluent and those
who historically have avoided this great responsibility”. Rangel’s call for
equality of sacrifice and for a fuller sharing of patriotic duty has a
compelling and egalitarian ring, for we know that many among the economic
and social elite and the upper classes- including some former Presidents,
current and past cabinet members and high ranking members of congress- have
traditionally avoided the rigors of service in war and its chance of paying
the “ultimate sacrifice” for the nation.
I would contend, however, that there are other ways of being a drum major
for justice and extending the equality of shared patriotism, and that is by
having a form of compulsory national service that is not limited to the
military sector but includes the civilian sectors as well: serving our aged,
infirm, young, our destitute, those at risk “criminally”, and those citizens
in nations in which we are trying to ignite fledging democratic values and
widespread civic participation.
Varied forms of this model have been tried in developed and developing
societies alike, and particularly in Guyana under the late President Forbes
Burnham, with mixed to positive results with regard to the building of a
greater understanding, if not respect, for the heterogeneity which exist in
diverse societies, especially pluralistic ones. Such endeavors also force
the members of the elite and upper middle classes to get a direct, not
vicarious, appreciation of the debilitating effects of poverty, as well as
racial/ ethnic, gender and other social inequalities.
Of course, Rangel’s thrust at community service for those who do not
qualify for military service is commendable and parallels the former
conscientious objector (CO) category in the selective service legislation.
But I believe that a comprehensive form of national service that is
innovatively designed would serve the nation well as we change
demographically with new, and in some instances, continuing deepening areas
of de facto racial and economic segregation in our cities and counties. Our
pacifist, Martin, would be hard put to avoid adding his support to a
national thrust of this sort even as he weighed in against the evils of war
and the inherent competing imperative of a “guns versus butter” social
policy that always results in skewed and diminished opportunities for social
programs in favor of massive military expenditures.
At many of our educational institutions of higher learning, state and
private, the kernel of many such programs already exists, at times funded by
philanthropic grants from our NGO’s –the Ford, Kellogg and Rockefeller
foundations, for example, and aided by the Peace Corps, Teach America and
other such governmental efforts. In this endeavor this nation would again be
focused on its other directed, altruistic nature and its contribution and
development of a culture that teaches us to live ethical lives, that are
full of integrity, compassionate and moved to positive action for the poor
and less needy within and outside our borders.
Just last week I was conversing with a friend, now enjoying retirement,
as we wildly conjectured whether a dream ticket of Bush /Powell in 2004
would truly, again, emancipate a nation that some argue is losing its moral
bearings, and would force us to challenge long held ideas and assumptions
about the efficacy of race, class, ethnicity and gender as they affect our
sense of national identity, (who we are), and the concomitant power
arrangements that flow from such. We could not agree, but what was
interesting was that my friend proudly extolled the benefits of the military
institution as he recited the successes and accomplishments of a young male
brigadier general in his early forties and an even younger female fighter
pilot, both service academy trained and second generation Caribbean
(Guyanese) Americans, who were doing their country proud as they performed
“national” service and put their lives in harm’s way. Clearly his vision of
service, while commendable, was limited in scope.
Let us hope that as we continue to define patriotism and service for
country we extend our parameters to include the teacher serving in an inner
city, under performing urban school or on a reservation, often in combat
like situations; the nurse tending to our infirm and mentally deranged in
our health institutions; and the peace corps worker often in remote
locations with no vast support mechanism but faith in the transformative
power of community service to save lives and renew hope, as some other
examples of worthwhile, even heroic, patriots.
These are frightening times for most Americans: our national economy is
still anemic in its recovery; the states are awash in “red ink” and debt and
forced to make tough choices which will increase unemployment, suffering,
discontent and social disorganization; and an incipient mood of national
xenophobia and a tolerance of encroachments to our civil rights seem to be
growing. And so as President Bush hurtles to involve us in a diversionary
war for Oil, which will in no iota lower the threat of terrorism on our
shores and abroad, or increase the chances for peace in the middle east or
elsewhere, let us remember the legacy of our late patriot Martin Luther King
in this month of January.
Against a backdrop of vicious and intense criticism from friends and
enemies both, King’s criticism of the war in Vietnam was relentless, for he
saw it as not only morally unjust, but also detracting from the fight for
racial and economic justice at home. These sentiments ring prophetic and
relevant in these times. Dyson summed it up in this way, “If King’s antiwar
activism led to his being branded a renegade and a traitor, his move to
wrestle the demons of economic inequality and social class was even more
unsettling. King believed that our nation’s problems grew from the triplets
of social misery: racism, militarism and poverty.”
Our nation has made steady progress on many fronts since King’s untimely
assassination, but our problems are still formidable and his depiction of
our social misery index still incisive and true. As noted, I am no pacifist,
but the case for this “just war” has not been made. Let us give peace a
chance and instead redouble our efforts at home and abroad to fight the
scourges of poverty, racial and ethnic injustice and social inequality,
especially in these troubling times.
January 15, 2003. IMPACT OPINIONS, IMPACT NEWS. © |
