Citizen-soldiers: a crisis four decades in the making

From:
[VeteransRights] Citizen-soldiers: a crisis four decades in the making

Full story: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/opinion/2001751653_gold30.html
Guest columnist
Citizen-soldiers: a crisis four decades in the making

By Philip Gold
Special to The Times

AP
Reservists with the 887 Quartermaster Co. in Sinton, Texas, await
deployment overseas in this Feb. 12, 2003, file photo.

E-mail this article
Print this article
Search archive

Reservists sometimes get weary.

I well recall a weariness of my own. 1980. Three a.m. I was a Marine reserve
major, out inspecting my domain — in this case, a Fort Indiantown Gap cantonment
holding 2,500 Cubans fresh off the Mariel Boatlift.

One came at me with a club. Not having been entirely impressed by President
Carter's "There are no bad boys so let's not be armed" policy, I drew a little
pistol from my pocket. The club became a souvenir. The Marielito went back to
his barracks. And I realized that it was time to quit.

As an intelligence and civil-affairs officer, I'd spent a good bit of the
preceding four years on active duty, at weekend drills and in donated "love of
country time." It had been necessary and rewarding work. But it wasn't my life,
and I could no longer countenance the disruptions.

If you believe the media and the cumulating anecdotal evidence, a lot of
citizen-soldiers are reaching, or getting ready to reach, the same conclusion.
There are now more than 170,000 service reservists and National Guard members on
active duty, about 80,000 of them in Iraq (a majority of our current force
there). The Army has indicated that 20,000 may have their tours extended, some
for as long as a year.

Since 9-11, well over 200,000 citizen-soldiers have been mobilized, some more
than once — a number that excludes state-ordered National Guard deployments.
Additional mobilizations, including three National Guard combat brigades, are
planned. The Army has placed its entire reserve "on a war footing." Everybody's
nervous.

And hardly a day goes by without some Pentagon or think tank dire prediction
that the 1 million to 1.2 million-person citizen-soldiery (depending on which
statistics you believe) is on the verge of collapse, due to chronic
overcommitment and imminent mass exodus.

It's not quite that bad. At least, not yet. But the citizen-soldiery now faces a
crisis four decades in the making. And it's a crisis that touches upon a
fundamental question: the nature and extent of citizen military obligation in
the age now upon us.

Thirty years ago, America ended conscription. We ended it because conscription
had become politically and morally discredited. Throughout the Cold War, most
democracies drafted. But by law and policy and custom, they tied conscription to
specific and limited duties, primarily homeland defense. Only America assumed
that draftees could be sent anywhere, anytime, to do anything, regardless of
national consensus — an assumption that died with Vietnam, but that we now lay
upon our citizen-soldiers.

Then a wise and prescient man, Army Chief of Staff Creighton Abrams, determined
to restructure his service so that it could not go to war without major reserve
and Guard mobilization ... and would not go to war without the popular support
necessary to sustain that mobilization politically. This became the basis of the
"Total Force Policy," which held that the citizen-soldiery would be considered
as the full equivalent of active forces, and equally available.

It worked well during the 1991 Gulf War. And all the grousing notwithstanding,
the practice is working well today.

But the Total Force Policy had another aspect. By the latter '70s, reserves were
being used to take on tasks the regulars either couldn't do or didn't care to
do — a usage that reached ominous levels during the Clinton years, in the
Balkans and elsewhere. At first, the Guard and reserves were happy to oblige:
prove your worth, and all that. But by 2001, it was clear that this "optempo,"
or level of operations, was unsustainable.

The Bush administration had no choice but to increase it, first in response to
9-11, then as a tool for the conquest and occupation of two Islamic nations,
plus occasional duties in the 120 or so other countries where we maintain a
military presence. And now, even Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld concedes that
Guard and reserve missions and structures must be radically reconceived.

Quite so. But this reconceiving must begin with a political and moral issue.
Should the citizen-soldiery be considered available to be sent anywhere, any
time, to do anything? Or should it be "homeland defense only," except in time of
full emergency and solid national commitment? Or should it be (my personal
preference) a mixed affair, some units and individuals available for
expeditionary duty, others stay-at-homes?

The answer isn't obvious. What is obvious is the fact that, if we continue the
present usage, ever more of our citizen-soldiers will conclude: "Yes, it's
necessary and important work.
"But it isn't my life."

Philip Gold is president of Aretéa, a public- and cultural-affairs center that
is based in Seattle. He may be reached at aretean@netscape.net

------------------------------------
MilitaryMomsOnline/VeteransRights/AmericanAngelArt
Gunny Diane M. Weller
CEO
dweller@neo.rr.com
13360 N. Elyria Rd., Lot 625
P.O. Box 613
West Salem, OHIO USA 44287-0613
tel: 419-853-1372
fax: 1-240-376-0333
http://militarymomsonline.tripod.com/organization/
------------------------------------