Djelloul Marbrook

I understand the argument for a volunteer army. It’s a powerful argument. Its proof is how very good our army is. But I think ultimately it’s a deeply flawed argument, because if we are to remain a democratic republic the rich should not be sending the sons and daughters of the poor to war.

And even if we were to become a military state like ancient Sparta the morale, the genius of the state would be best served by everyone serving equally. How else can children of wealth discharge their duties to a state from which they have benefited? Everyone should be willing to defend a state in which they believe, whether by active military service or by engaging in such projects as AmeriCorps and the Peace Corps.

The argument should be not only about the quality of the army but the quality of the state and the ideals it holds. The argument is too one-sided, too limited to military science; the broader interests of the state should be considered too. The military does not exist for itself; rather it exists to uphold and defend our ideals, and it should not be allowed to take part in dismantling them in the name of expedience. Not even Sparta for all its militarism would have countenanced that.
We should consider, too, that historically the use of mercenaries is a measure of a civilization’s decline. We have used soldiers for hire in Iraq. When Iraq’s medieval empire under the Abbasids decided to use mercenaries it foreshadowed a breathtaking decline. The same may be said of Rome and the Ottoman Empire and many another world power.

By eschewing the draft we are making the case for an elitist society, saying not that Yankee Doodle will defend us when necessary but that poor Yankee Doodle will do the job. If the lords of the land, our fatted upper class, is unwilling to send its children to war it tells us they’re Americans for what they can get out of the rest of us, not because they believe in our ideals.

If we are to remain as egalitarian as we say we are, as egalitarian as those who wrap themselves in the flag and try to make traitors out of dissenters say we are, then let the rich put their money where their collective mouth is. If their children object to war, let them serve in other capacities. This is not just a military issue, it is a social issue. We do not exist to serve our military. We do not exist to adjust to it; it exists to protect our commonly held birthright. If we become a military state, or merely a state that panders to its military-industrial sector, we forfeit that birthright.

But by all means let us rid ourselves of a circumstance in which old, overweight white men wearing flag pins and waving for the camera send children of color, poverty and despair to war—and then desert them when they come back broken. —DM