From Draft NOtices, January—March 2009
— Rick Jahnkow
Many advocates of progressive social change in this country are asking important questions about possible directions to follow after the 2008 election. For the peace movement, this question is particularly challenging because, while there is good reason to celebrate the defeat of the Republican Party and the election of the first African American president, there is also a real danger that Obama’s victory will undercut anti-war protest if he doesn’t move quickly to end the Bush administration’s two wars.
Many liberals might feel overly confident about the degree of change that is coming and decide that the new administration deserves to be given breathing space. It would then become much harder to mobilize opposition if Obama made good on his promise to shift the emphasis on military action from Iraq to Afghanistan.
Committee Opposed to Militarism and the Draft (COMD)
From Draft NOtices, January—March 2009
—– Kathy Gilberd
On July 19, 2005, Private First Class LaVena Johnson’s battered and partially burned body was found in a military contractor’s tent in Baled, Iraq. She had a gunshot wound to the head, a broken nose and loose teeth, bruises and abrasions all over her body. A corrosive chemical had been poured over her genital area.
The Army ruled her death a suicide. Its investigation found “massive self-inflicted trauma,” and concluded that she had shot herself through the mouth with a rifle, crawled from her own tent to the contractor’s, and set it on fire in an attempt to hide her self-mutilation and suicide. Ms. Johnson’s family believes that the evidence shows she was raped and murdered by a fellow soldier. Their belief is supported by photographs and autopsy information they forced the Army to release under the Freedom of Information Act. It is also consistent with statements from those who had talked with her before her death – including her company commander, who described her as “clearly happy.”
LaVena Johnson’s case points to a frightening pattern of rape and other violence against women in the military. In March 2008, the Department of Defense’s (DoD’s) Sexual Assault Prevention and Response (SAPR) office admitted that there had been 2,688 reported cases of sexual assault in the military in 2007. At the time of the report, only 600 of those had resulted in any punishment or administrative action for the attacker. Not long after these figures were released, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) testified before a congressional subcommittee that the majority of sexual assaults in the military went unreported. Their findings matched a DoD survey conducted in 2006, which also found that at least half of those assaulted did not inform the military of the attacks.
From Draft NOtices, January—March 2009
— Paula Hoffman Villanueva
Don’t ask, don’t tell. Don’t tell, don’t ask. Ask and tell. Tell and ask.
Anyway you put it, the policy is a web of dysfunctional and contradictory regulations, applied subjectively to suit the needs of the military. And the historic truth is, in wartime, it’s really not about being gay or lesbian. It’s about warm bodies. It’s about feeding the military machine with human fuel.
When recruit numbers were less critical, Don’t Ask Don’t Tell (DADT) was used to harass and persecute gay military members. From 1994, when the policy was implemented, to 2001, the number of discharges based on homosexuality steadily increased (614 in 1994; 1,273 in 2001). Beginning in 2002, the numbers started dropping dramatically in all branches of the military. In 2006, there were 612 discharges. Why half as many as in 2001? The reason is simple: warm bodies for Iraq and Afghanistan.
DADT is a hysterical and hypocritical policy. For the estimated 62,000 gays and lesbians who are in the military and want to serve, they must never come out and must never even casually touch a member of the same sex. “Discovery” can lead to an other-than-honorable discharge or a dishonorable discharge.
Ninth CIRCUIT COURT RULING: CONFRONTING MILITARISM BY USING EQUAL ACCESS TO HIGH SCHOOLS
When the military comes to your local high school, you have a legal right to give students an opposing view. This has been the position taken by federal district courts in Florida, Pennsylvania and Illinois and two federal appellate courts. The most broadly-worded decision came from a case that COMD took to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in the 1980s. Here is the background:
