No more spinach ... and please pass the dessert!

At a church Men's Forum a few years ago — indeed, it was the "Just War Theory and Iraq" forum, held shortly before the March 2003 invasion — Elder Klaus suggested reading books by people with whom we knew we disagreed, in order to challenge our own thinking with a different perspective.

To that end, last August I finally forced myself to pick up the copy of Darrell Cole's When God Says War Is Right that I'd had around the house. A pro-this-war brother at Emmanuel Covenant arranged a bulk purchase of that title — also right around the time of the Iraq invasion — and I simply never managed to muster the wanna to take it up. But last August, I decided that I must, primarily for the benefit of this weblog.

I think I read two or three chapters, tops. (And managed a couple of corresponding posts, here and here.) But it was like slogging through a cold plate of cooked spinach. I figured it was probably good for me — but I really didn't like it. Cole's style was dry — not at all compelling. To make matters worse, I couldn't shake the suspicion that he was baptizing American militarism with the views of several early church fathers. Now, I don't really have a problem with the views of the church fathers — I'm convinced the Bible sanctions just warfare. But in the few chapters that I'd read (and in some of the peeking ahead) I got the feeling that Cole felt all of America's military engagements have been just.

Then, while I was still choking down the spinach, my lovely bride set some ice cream and hot apple pie out on the table! She'd chanced across The Coming Draft: The Crisis in Our Military and Why Selective Service Is Wrong for America, by Philip Gold, at the public library, and thought I'd probably be interested, so she brought it home for me to look over.

Gold snagged me right out of the gate, for several reasons:

• He can turn a bourgeois-witty phrase — "Conscription sucks so bad, you get hickeys on your brain just thinking about it" — and he's not afraid to use made-up words like "ponderization" and "humongouser" (as in "more humongous").

• While he most vehemently opposes conscription, Gold also "[clings] to the antediluvian belief that every American male should spend some time in uniform as a normal part of life and of citizenship." (Might he be sympathetic to a militia-based national defense?) And while he finds conscientious objection both "personally and politically abhorrent ... were the draft to resume, I would extend the right to everybody, no questions asked." Conscience first, Caesar second.

• Gold's own life actions reflect both his opposition to the draft and his convictions re. duty-based, yet voluntary, military service. While in his senior year in college in 1970, Gold received a draft notice, which he mailed back to the draft board with this note:

Dear Draft Board,

Thank you for sending me this induction notice, which I am returning to you. I have no intention of serving in the United States Army. I will never serve in the United States Army. Please stop wasting my time, your time, and the government's postage.

Sincerely yours,
Philip Gold

PS: I recently joined the Marines

Gold served in the USMC officer corps for 11 years. (Not only that, but he's Jewish, and not afraid to lay the Iraq debacle at the feet of the neoconservatives — yes, he uses the "N-word"!)

Upon attaining his Ph.D. in history at Georgetown in 1981, Gold was commissioned by the Discovery Institute "to do a book on why we need the draft back."

My crest not only fell, it hit the floor with an audible thud. ...

It wasn't what I wanted. But fifty thousand to write a book and a year as a senior fellow in a no doubt prestigious think tank held a certain appeal. And so began what turned out to be a twenty-five year ponderization of two of the strangest ideas that human beings have ever come up with.

First, that a democratic state has the right to tear its citizens away from their homes, families, and private endeavors in order to send them anywhere the government desires to suffer, fight, kill, and die.

And second, that the citizens of a democratic state have the right to refuse.

In short, Gold's stance — "respectful of the military but unimpressed by the uses to which it has been put" — is what motivated him to write The Coming Draft.

After tearing halfway through the intro of the library's copy, I decided that I simply had to order my own from Amazon. (There are currently 30 new & used available from $3.89.) "Of course," I told myself, "you still must finish the spinach before starting dessert." So I gave Diannne the library's copy to take back, and put my own copy on the shelf when it arrived a couple weeks later.

But alas, I simply lost interest in Cole's book. Other priorities, and ... well, you know.

But now my family and I have a meeting with our Congressman, Trent Franks, this Thursday. We intend to ask him to work to eliminate Selective Service registration. (If nobody wants a draft, why do we still maintain the machinery of conscription?) Rep. Franks is a fellow believer, and I intend to first appeal to him with a biblical argument against the draft. But I figure I'd better read The Coming Draft as well, for prep work. (Heck, I'll probably offer to buy him a copy.)

Pass the ice cream and apple pie, please?

Service vs. slavery

The subject under consideration is, narrowly, the draft; more broadly, military service. But broadest of all is the question: Is there, can there be, any morally compelling, rationally structured, and militarily effective relationship between service and citizenship in the world and the age now upon us?

... [I]ssues of conscription and service, although currently atop nobody's list of concerns, will matter again greatly. And sooner than anyone thinks.

~ ~ Philip Gold, from the introduction of The Coming Draft: The Crisis in Our Military and Why Selective Service Is Wrong for America

My coins, but not my sons

Note: My regular readers (all four of them!) have probably read the following piece at my other blog, Rabbit Trails. But it occurs to me that it obviously belongs here as well, so I've reposted it.

— • —

A couple of years ago, our pastor preached on Mark 12. While discussing vv. 13-17, he revealed to me a gem — one of those gems that was right there in front of me all along, yet one I’d never noticed before:

Then they sent to Him some of the Pharisees and the Herodians, to catch Him in His words. When they had come, they said to Him, “Teacher, we know that You are true, and care about no one; for You do not regard the person of men, but teach the way of God in truth. Is it lawful to pay taxes to Caesar, or not? Shall we pay, or shall we not pay?”

But He, knowing their hypocrisy, said to them, “Why do you test Me? Bring Me a denarius that I may see it.” So they brought it.

And He said to them, “Whose image and inscription is this?” They said to Him, “Caesar’s.”

And Jesus answered and said to them, “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.” And they marveled at Him.

In contrast to the denarius, an ancient Roman coin which bore both the image and inscription of Caesar, Pastor Niell asked us, “Whose image and inscription do you bear?”

Why, the image of Jehovah, and the inscription of the Triune God, I thought. It suddenly occurred to me that, while all men bear the image of God, it is His people alone who bear His inscription: the mark or seal of baptism.

Pretty basic stuff, yes? But something worth considering the next time Caesar claims the authority to conscript citizens to murder for him. (Which claim, I'm sorry to report, I expect to be revived in the very near future.)

And so, a quick note to you who happen to occupy the chair of former Presidents Lincoln and Roosevelt:

Jesus says you can have my pennies and dimes. But neither I nor my children belong to you. God gives you no authority to snatch us up, hand us a rifle, and compel us to violate the Sixth Commandment.

For “whether it is right in the sight of God to listen to you more than to God, you judge” (Acts 4:19).

"Love thy neighbor" and national messianism

Appropos of my last post, I just happened across this (italics mine):

It is very hard for any nation, especially one as allegedly well-intentioned as the United States, to resist the messianic temptation, especially when we see the genuine political and social needs of the nations of the world.

But it is very important to remember that the Biblical fruits of covenant-keeping faithfulness to God cannot be exported without first exporting the source of those blessings — the preaching of the gospel of Christ and His life-transforming (and culture-transforming) work. This is the essential difference between 18-19th Century colonialism and the imperialist efforts of the super powers in the 20th Century. The former usually sent missionaries first, where the latter have sent the army.

Nor can we properly apply the Biblical maxim of "love your neighbor" directly to the state. The state, as a "minister" of God for the sustaining of righteousness and justice (cf. Rom. 13:1ff) is strictly limited in the scope of its legitimate use of coercion (the "power of the sword"). To give to one, it must first take from another, and God in His wisdom has restricted the circumstances under which the state can coerce its citizens into helping another nation.

~ Roger Wagner, "Vietnam: Biblical Reflections on National Messianism"

I'm especially interested in hearing the biblical support for Wagner's last assertion. (I wonder if I might simply call and ask him?)

The citizen militia — a third way of national defense

Did you notice anything unusual about Gen. Lute's comments from last Friday?

I think it makes sense to certainly consider [returning to the draft], and I can tell you, this has always been an option on the table, but ultimately, this is a policy matter between meeting the demands for the nation's security by one means or another.

Sorry for the trick question. There wasn't anything unusual about Lute's comments. Although Lute didn't explicitly say it in so many words, implicit in his remarks is the defense-policy assumption which always goes unchallenged, to wit: there are only two possible means to "meet the demands for the nation's security" — either an all-volunteer, professional military; or a "mixed" Army of conscripts and volunteers.

But there's a third option that is virtually never discussed today, even though it is precisely what our nation's founders had in mind since the beginning: Armed neutrality, which combines a foreign policy of non-interventionism with a militia-based national defense.

An army comprised primarily of every able-bodied male, supported and augmented by a small corps of full-time military professionals, has supported Switzerland's policy of armed neutrality for centuries — and it is what our founders had in mind 200+ years ago. I intend to introduce and discuss in future posts the concept of a militia-based national defense. I think it is the biblical model for a just national defense — the best way for a free people to defend their nation without becoming entangled in foreign affairs and conflicts.

But for now, I commend to you "The Swiss Report," a paper on the Swiss militia system written in 1983 by retired Generals George S. Patton (USA — son of "the" Gen. Patton) and Lewis W. Walt (USMC). (I also just stumbled upon this rather detailed Wikipedia entry: "Military of Switzerland.") Read about how the Swiss do it, and consider how we might do it ourselves.

Consider also just what kind of national character would be necessary.

He said/he said: Draft chatter

As noted in my last post, President Bush's "War Czar," Lt. Gen. David Lute, made the following comments re. a possible return to the military draft in an interview on NPR Friday afternoon:

I think it makes sense to certainly consider, and I can tell you, this has always been an option on the table, but ultimately, this is a policy matter between meeting the demands for the nation's security by one means or another.

Gen. Lute's remarks garnered much discussion and speculation in the mainstream — and not-so-mainstream — media last weekend.

But then on Monday, the Pentagon said, No, we're not even thinking about a new draft:

"I can tell you emphatically that there is absolutely no consideration being given to reinstituting the draft," said Bryan Whitman, a Pentagon spokesman. "The all-volunteer force has surpassed all expectations of its founders."

My, my, look at all the pretty superlatives: Emphatically! Absolutely! Surpassed!

Yep, smells like administrative Bravo Sierra to me.

Now, I was but a humble USAF jet engine mechanic from 1980 through 1983. A running joke of mine is, "No, I wasn't in the military. I was in the Air Force," so I don't claim to have any special insights into things pertaining to ground combat forces.

But when I see what appears to be the sad condition of our military, and when I hear American leaders thumping the war drums against Iran, and when I read this genius saying he thinks another 9/11 would be good, because it would unify America ... well, you don't have to be a weatherman to know which way the wind is blowing.

US intelligence agencies routinely monitor open and clandestine communication channels looking for "chatter" — messages that could indicate current or pending enemy activity. Americans should be similarly attuned to a recent increase in US government and media chatter that may portend a possible return to a military draft in the near future.

"War Czar": It "Makes Sense" to Consider Draft

In an interview broadcast today on NPR's All Things Considered, US Army Lt. Gen. Douglas Lute said he shared the concerns of his fellow military officers that repeated and extended deployments of US troops in Afghanistan and Iraq are straining the military to the breaking point.

Gen. Lute, assistant to the president and deputy national security adviser for Iraq and Afghanistan (a.k.a. President Bush's "War Czar"), also said that from a military standpoint, it makes sense to consider reinstating the draft.

Ever since the "battle for Iraq" ended and the occupation began, it has become increasingly clear to me that our military forces are being severely strained. To very near the breaking point.

Re-enlistments are down. Recruiting is down. Recruiting standards (re. age, health, education level and even criminal history) are down. "National" Guardsmen are routinely deployed internationally. US Air Force airmen — e.g., pilots, loadmasters and other aircrew — are receiving ground combat training at Ft. Dix (an Army base), then being sent to help soldiers and Marines fight in Iraq. It seems like we're just barely covering our commitments in the Middle East.

Thus, I've long thought that they could very well reinstate the draft sometime in the next 3 to 5 years, in order to rebuild our military while maintaining (or further expanding) our force level in the Middle East.

But if the feces hits the blower before that — whether here or someplace else in the world — I think a new draft is a slam dunk. The president would probably be announcing it live on TV and radio within a month.

Thus it would behoove parents to start discussing this matter with their sons and daughters, so they can consider how they'll respond to Caesar's fraudulent claim on their lives.

Day Zero — What would you do?

A couple of weeks ago, Di was surfing and learned about the new indie film, Day Zero. The premise: The military draft is reinstated to fill the ranks for the war on terror. Three best friends in New York City — a novelist, a lawyer and a cabbie — receive their draft notices, and in the 30 days before they must report for duty, they confront their beliefs about duty, honor, courage, friendship and love.

I e-mailed Lew Rockwell about the film on 27 July. He blogged about it on 2 August.

When Day Zero's website saw a surge in traffic, producer Anthony Moody traced it back to Lew Rockwell's blog — you just gotta love the Internets, right George? — so he contacted him. Rockwell invited Moody to write a piece about the film for his website.

Moody's piece appeared on LRC today. He writes:

... Of note, the trio of writer, director and producer included (in no particular order) a liberal, a conservative, and a centrist. So how did we collaborate to make a "political" film? The answer, for my part at least, is that we didn't make a political film in the traditional sense which, to me, is one that takes a biased stance and attempts to persuade the audience to its argument.

Instead, we made a film meant to provoke thought, introspection, discussion, and debate. Mandatory conscription is a concept and practice that dates back literally millennia. Day Zero asks the simple but universal question: What would you do if called to serve? It's a question, like those surrounding guns or abortion, about which people tend to have extremely strong opinions. It's a question whose answer is ultimately rooted in all that is deeply personal.

Is it influenced by one's view of government (left or right), war, class, or religion and morality? Of course. But it is also shaped by who we are, how we perceive ourselves, how others perceive us and interact with us, and how we live our lives. These latter, most personal factors are ones we rarely stop and think about (for the most part).

With Day Zero, what we've tried to do is to get people to stop and ponder for themselves — not a knee-jerk, but a consideration ... when you come home from work, check the mailbox, and sort through the pile — you see that envelope from the Selective Service Administration ... what do you do? How do you feel? How do you respond? How do you treat others around you? And ultimately — what choice do you make?

What's been most gratifying, in this age of disposable entertainment (when was the last time you chatted about a blockbuster beyond the ride home from the theater?) is how the audiences at our screenings let us know — by email, phone, blog posts, reviews, etc. — that Day Zero stayed with them. They continue to think about the characters and how they would respond in their place long after the credits rolled. Even better — they continue to discuss it with their friends and family. In that regard, I'm extremely proud and feel like we did our job.

Before a person can answer the question, "What would I do," I think he needs to answer (as Moody alluded to) the fundamental question, "Who owns my life?" Me? God? The polis (state)? The demos (people)?

Moody writes, "Day Zero is due for a small-scale theatrical release later this year. If successful it will be rolled out to more screens in more markets. It will also eventually be available on DVD." If you are interested in seeing this film, don't wait around for the DVD! Contact the management of your local theaters (especially those that screen documentaries and indie films) and encourage them to get the film.

And when they do, be sure to take some friends along.

I look forward to seeing Day Zero, and hope it provokes a vital and long-overdue discussion in our nation about the proper relationship between the individual and Caesar.