David Swanson: Be All That You Can Be ... Leave the Army

As long as there has been a U.S. military, people have been leaving it. That choice has never been more appropriate than today....

Approximately 8,000 Americans have refused to report for duty or deserted in order to avoid taking part in this war, or to avoid taking further part in it....

Robert Fantina has just published a careful survey of past wars titled"Desertion and the American Soldier, 1776-2006." During the Revolutionary War, he tells us, one reason for desertion was the corporal punishment endured in the military. Men were often given 100 lashes. When George Washington was unable to convince Congress to raise the legal limit to 500 lashes, he considered using hard labor as a punishment instead, but dropped that idea because the hard labor was indistinguishable from regular service in the Continental Army. Soldiers also left because they needed food, clothing, shelter, medicine, and money. They signed up for pay, were not paid, and endangered their families' well being by remaining in the Army unpaid.

During the Mexican-American War, in a tribute to a future president, soldiers were branded on the face with a"W" if for some reason they were deemed worthless. This sort of treatment, as in the Revolutionary War, was one reason for desertions, but another reason played a large role and would play an increasingly prominent role in desertions through the course of later wars: lack of belief in the cause.

Through the course of recounting the types of desertions prevalent during the various U.S. wars and peace time, Fantina slowly begins to make a case for reforms in the military that he believes would reduce desertions. By the time he's discussing World War I he's arguing as follows:"Without fundamental change that allows a man or woman to be, first and foremost a human being, and a soldier only by chosen occupation, the military will continue to struggle with desertion."

But if, as Fantina proposes, soldiers are permitted to resign at any time, will we not see mass resignations? If troops now serving in Iraq could legally choose to quit, wouldn't many of them do so?

Fantina lists the various rights that soldiers die fighting to supposedly protect but which, as soldiers, they are denied. He views this as hypocrisy and injustice. But is it not necessary in order to get people to kill each other? Fantina describes cases in which deserters have been executed, deserters whose desertion put no one at risk, whose desertion was arguably justified, whose current lives were a threat to no one. "One can only wonder what good such [executions] accomplish," writes Fantina. But those who make war don't wonder much, I think. Does Fantina not see that he is calling into question the entire logic of war?

In the book's final pages, Fantina writes: "The following list of military reforms was suggested in 1903: Over 100 years later, most of them are yet to be implemented, yet they would certainly contribute to a more stable military force:

* 1. Private soldiers to receive a substantial increase in pay.

* 2. The employment of trained cooks.

* 3. Recognition of the right of all soldiers of whatever position to engage in criticism and in free speech at all times and under all circumstances.

* 4. All the food a soldier wishes to eat, instead of being
limited as at present, to an inadequate 'ration.'

* 5. Absolute amnesty to all deserters from the army and navy.

* 6. The erection of modern sanitary buildings at all places where troops are quartered.

* 7. Service in the army to be limited to two years.

* 8. Abolition of military salutes and all other imbecile and
servile practices.

* 9. Thorough practice in mobility, rapid field movements, quick concentration, with special attention to supplying the troops promptly and regularly with abundant, wholesome nourishing food.

* 10. All soldiers and officers, whatsoever, to eat exactly the
same food, and to be housed or quartered alike at all times and in all places.

* 11. Prohibition of all forms of torture and violence."

Of course, Fantina is right. It is a disgrace the way we mistreat
those who risk their lives for us. But would rectifying this produce a more stable force or a force likely to collapse when ordered to kill innocent people for power-mad cowboys and their oil profits?

Then again, would that be such a bad thing? Does anyone doubt for a minute that if the United States were actually threatened soldiers would sign up to fight proudly in its defense?...