Peace Letter 40-2

WHERE DO SOLDIERS COME FROM?

By John Judge
August/September 2004
Volume 40, Number 2
Where have all the young men gone?
Gone to soldiers, every one.
And where have all the soldiers gone?
Gone to graveyards, every one.
When will they ever learn?
When will they ever learn?
- from "Where have all the flowers gone?" Peter, Paul & Mary

From the beginnings of armed conflict, combat and war the participants have been a mixture of volunteers and the less than willing. During the long course of human history, privation and economic circumstance drove human communities, cities and then countries to accumulate wealth, privilege and control of resources through expansion and conquest.

Once nation states and trade were more established, the absolute necessity and practicality of warfare diminished, but advances in the technology of death were usually accompanied by warfare. Deeds and fiefs, backed by the force of the state accumulated wealth. Serfs and peasants paid a percentage of their production to the privileged owners, tolls were taken on roads and bridges, and the means of production as well as the natural resources were increasingly stolen from the commonwealth. Fealty to a lord or a kingdom also meant being forced to participate in local and national conflicts and wars on their call to arms. There were already mercenary troops for hire as well, across all boundaries.

Individual participation in war was always linked to economic conditions, even though the cause of empire or country could inspire the enlistment of the sons of the wealthy as leaders in the battlefield. As nations raised standing armies and trained them, more formal methods of conscription were created to insure participation. Many fled such conscripted duty in Europe, only to be confronted by it again in the emerging United States. By the time of the American Revolution, it was common practice to allow payment of a substitute for conscripted military duty. Also common were desertion, avoidance and the practice of capturing unwitting males for service aboard ships or abroad.

As the world moved into the industrial age and wealth could be created without direct force or theft, the constant need to expand markets and control resources or exploit labor continued to drive warfare, which eventually became global. Surplus production was monopolized for the wealth of a few instead of the good of all. Scientific developments were almost always considered for military use first, sometimes shrouding them in secrecy to prevent the advantage of others.

Through its early history and up to World War I, America used a combination of conscription and economic incentives to maintain defensive forces at home and to venture abroad. But the huge standing army with its global presence today was a direct result of World War II and the permanent war economy that followed it. The impetus of the Cold War and interventions in Korea, Vietnam and elsewhere, as well as maintaining a military presence in strategic countries, led to the extension of the Selective Service System, which had been used to select out the glut of volunteers that followed Pearl Harbor and the US entry into that world war.

The Pentagon never relied solely on conscripts to fill the ranks, though. West Point and Annapolis service academies, Reserve Officer Training Corps at colleges and universities (which was often mandatory up to enlistment), and the Officer Training Corps that drew from the ranks of the enlisted served to create a cadre of enlisted officers to oversee the troops. Home defense was a function of National Guard and reserve duty volunteers as well, and an option for those not wanting to be drafted into combat. A solid percentage of the US military has always been volunteers, though the methods used to enlist them and the incentives have changed over the years. Conscripted ranks, which in the past had only been used in times of war, sustained a large military force abroad, and swelled in numbers projected at the Pentagon for use in Vietnam and other conflicts.

Asymmetrical warfare, between unequal forces, became the norm and only the development of weapons of unthinkable devastation to people and the environment served to stay the belligerence of nations and coalitions who had to consider a mutually assured destruction in their use. The development of weapons that are near-nuclear in their destructive forces without being radioactive, and the proliferation of weapons globally, and the ongoing concentration of wealth and subsequent poverty created by global corporate monopolies and privatization of government functions massive development of military power among a few nations. The United States is far in the lead on military size, weapons and spending, which has led to the current situation of Pax Americana, taking on the role of the empire and world power it once resisted.

As opposition to undeclared wars and interventions grew, so did resistance to conscripted service. Mandatory ROTC had to be abandoned at almost all colleges due to student protests and refusals during the Vietnam war, and military recruiters were often confronted and opposed. Non-registration for Selective Service got as high as 85% in DC by the early '70s. Conscription by Selective Service was finally abandoned in those years, since only one out of four were reporting when ordered. An annual national lottery, designed to diminish dissent by giving early notice of the likelihood of being drafted, led to increased resistance by those almost sure to be called. Troops and potential draftees alike fled to other countries, avoided military duties, and sometimes directly confronted military authority. Facing a growing revolt on the field in Vietnam and a massive anti-war and anti-draft movement at home, the Pentagon and the White House turned instead to a poverty draft, using economic incentives and pressure to bring "volunteers" into the military ranks.

War has always been primarily a male-dominated activity, though women are usually the primary victims on both sides of the conflict, and sometimes participants, inside or outside the military bases. Women have also been more actively sought for the "All Volunteer Force" to "do the jobs that men don't want to" according to Pentagon planners. The Pentagon still refers to the challenges of maintaining or expanding the force as "Manpower issues". Despite fears that this would create a "professional military" class, not balanced by the civilian conscripts, the reality is that lower-ranking enlisted members do not share the same concerns as those who plan wars and foreign policy, and are quite likely to resist unjust wars. They did so in Vietnam, Grenada, the first Gulf War, and in the current conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq. There is still a tremendous turnover of employees in the military, and an active and expensive national recruitment machinery and campaign to replace them.

Then-Secretary of Defense Colin Powell's Total Force Doctrine began the practice of using National Guard and Reserve forces in combat abroad in larger numbers than the active duty forces, making all enlistment effective for eight years in which people could be mobilized for war. During the first Gulf War, special "stop-loss" orders made it difficult if not impossible for troops to be discharged, especially conscientious objectors, whose claims were heard only on the battlefield. At the same time, there were higher numbers of troops applying for discharge as conscientious objectors, especially Blacks and Muslims than at the height of the Vietnam resistance in the ranks. Similar regulations in use now have created a "back-door draft" or re-scription by refusing to allow troops to leave when their enlistment period expires, and troop rotations have been promised and then delayed.

As the US expands its global role and combats, the current military of over a million people is being stretched thin, forced to handle increased homeland security, a continuing presence in scores of countries, and interventions in a list that President Bush said may rise to 60 countries. The Pentagon planners want to continue to rely on the poverty draft for as long as they can, and they are now dipping into the Individual Ready Reserve, a demobilized force of over 100,000, and moving troops from stations in Korea and other long-term assignments abroad. In addition, the Pentagon has long used surrogate local forces, international allies, paid mercenaries and others to replace US troops on the battlefield. In the current conflicts, many functions previously carried out by our troops are now privatized and farmed out to civilian agencies, sometimes working in tandem with the troops. Note the recent role of contractors in the prison abuses at Abu Girab, or Kellog, Brown & Root's "Base in a Box" package that builds a pre-fab military base anywhere in the world, using armed civilians, in preparation for the insertion of troops.

The nature of modern warfare, the questionable politics used to justify intervention, and the remaining doubts about war left in the wake of the Vietnam-era resistance recently led to a broader and deeper anti-war movement in the US opposing in advance the Pax Americana doctrine and wars abroad than had been seen at the height of the Vietnam war. Religious leaders, troops, their families, members of Congress, military and intelligence officers and a broad range of citizens raised their voices in opposition before and during the recent incursions into Afghanistan and Iraq.

There was no significant rise in enlistment after the 9/11 attacks. In fact, prior to being sent to war in response an average of 200 GIs were going AWOL every month. Troops in the field and their families at home are extremely dissatisfied with the poor medical treatment, slow rotation of duty, and failure to provide minimal protective equipment. Military Families Speak Out formed spontaneously before war broke out, and represents thousands of people concerned about their loved ones. Stars and Stripes, a popular magazine aimed at GIs reported on a poll taken on the ground in the war zones that showed 69% of Army reservists do not plan to re-enlist when their current term of duty ends. Retention is becoming more of a problem than meeting recruiting goals. Veterans returning from the combat to VA hospitals were being forced to pay for their food during recovery.

Hundreds of millions of dollars are spent on recruitment advertising, recruiting commands meet strict quotas and goals, and young people are militarized as Young Marines, and in JROTC preparation classes in middle school and through high school. Over 90% of enlistment are done through the Delayed Entry Program, and young people sign up to join when they graduate from high school. The recent No Child Left Behind Act requires secondary schools taking federal funds to turn over contact information lists on all students to military recruiters on request. The law also allows parents and students to refuse to release the information, but they are rarely informed of their rights. Recruiters are a constant presence in schools, malls and youth events as well, and most films glorify war as a means to seek justice or revenge, and as a rite of passage for young men. Pentagon recruiting claims continue to distort the benefits available to veterans and the risks.

There is also the public perception that the poverty draft does not fairly distribute the burdens of military work and risks across the social spectrum. Congressman Charles Rangel (D-NY) used this logic to introduce a bill for universal conscription, believing that Congress members would be less likely to vote in favor of war if their own children had to fight. The bill is poorly drafted, violates the rights of conscientious objectors, and is sitting in Committee along with its counterpart in the Senate that was introduced by Sen. Hollingsworth (R-GA). There are renewed calls for either a military draft or for involuntary national service that would allow civilian options from both sides of the congressional aisle.

The proponents of a new draft fail to take into account key issues about how it would work and what the consequences would be. Here are a few:

1) During the Vietnam period, draft boards and the Selective Service System took an even more disproportionate level of Blacks and people of color than the current poverty draft system does. Blacks made up 55% of all draftees, and a lower percentage of enlisted during Vietnam, and currently they comprise 36% of the overall "volunteer" force. Thus, the draft system was more systematically racist and discriminatory than the current system.

2) While college and job deferments were part of the class discrimination that filtered poor, undereducated and people of color into the services under the draft, there were other factors as well. Draft boards tended to be predominantly white and educated, with many former military members serving on them. Selective Service Director General Hershey once compared the draft to "an uncomfortably warm room with a number of pre-selected doors", that was geared to accomplish social engineering goals that were more directly accomplished "by foreign dictators for their youth". The Selective Service System obviously was not choosing randomly, but served broader social goals and agendas.

3) It is true that currently few of the sons and daughters of members of Congress are not serving in the war on Iraq, and that military service does not affect the children of the well to do or better educated elements of the society. Instead it appeals to those who see it as a way to improve their social and economic situation and to afford college. Especially for women and people of color, these prove to be false hopes in most cases. Recently discharged African-American males more likely to be unemployed and homeless than their neighbors who never join the military. Not only do they not learn useful job skills (90% of veterans polled say this), but they face a much higher rate of courts-martial and less than honorable discharge (twice the level of all enlisted), which marks them for life for legal employment discrimination. All this is true, and yet during the Vietnam era no son of a Congressman was ever drafted, and very few served in the war then or now.

4) Even if the only deferments/exemptions that remain in this proposed new draft law are those required by decency, common sense and religious freedom (i.e. family hardship, medical and conscientious objection), those able to discern, document, articulate and secure these deferments will also reflect the class/race/educational divides of the society. I spent half my time as a draft counselor on a college campus, the other half in the poor white and Black communities of Dayton, Ohio. I know the difference in making a winning case first hand, and the obstacles people of color face. Even though the current composition of trained draft boards set for a mobilization is more diverse, these factors will still protect the very rich. Non-registration and exile will again become popular if people feel they are being forced to serve, despite the penalties. And objectors of conscience, unless treated fairly, will also refuse to serve and face jail sentences again. I do not want to relive that era.

5) This is perhaps my most telling point. Even if you could somehow pass a law that would bring a truly diverse and demographically representative cross-section of the population to the gate of the US military and force them to serve (and I would argue you cannot), they will be entering the most structured racist, classist and sexist institution in the society. Their placement, job assignments, rank and treatment will reflect the biases of the greater society in an even more dramatic way. The front lines of Vietnam were predominantly Black and Hispanic with a few white officers. This has not changed substantially, though women and white troops make up more of the combat support ranks nowadays. Fearing the same response that the Vietnam war brought from troops of color near its end, GI's massed at the border of Kuwait during the first Gulf war were never issued live rounds for their weapons, until they day they actually engaged into Kuwait to fight the Iraq forces. The educated, well-to-do sons and daughters of Congress will not be serving on the front lines of combat, but would be afforded jobs in intelligence and other work far from actual war zones. The ASVAB test used to determine every enlisted member's M.O.S. (military occupation specialty) has been evaluated by educational testing experts, who say it is both race and gender biased. Thus, even if you could draft in a diverse swath of society, the roles they would play and the burdens they would face would remain essentially the same in my view.

6) Introducing a draft will make it even more likely that the President and administration in power will go to war because they will have an inexhaustible supply of manpower. Despite claims that the volunteer military is creating a "professional" Army, and the counter-claims that the draft equalizes and "civilianizes" the military, these are both false. The officers and generals who plan the wars and make the policies will continue to come primarily from the military academies, the JROTC units at the colleges, and to a much smaller extent from those who rise from the ranks due to education and articulation. The lower ranking enlisted and the draftee alike have little to say about the nature or conduct of the military except "yes, Sir!" In fact, the resistance in the ranks against the war in Vietnam rose first and primarily from the enlisted troops, not from the draftees. Enlisted members demand something in return from the military in ways draftees, despite their unwillingness, rarely do. But, a large standing military, with an endless supply of troops to conscript, is much more likely to be used abroad than a reasonably sized and funded truly volunteer military geared for actual defense. Thus a draft, rather than making Congress and the upper class think twice about going to war, will encourage them to expand the conflicts.

7) In my experience, middle class and working families had no trouble telling their sons to go off to Vietnam because it was their "duty to country". Advocates speak of making military service and the sacrifice to country more fair or equitable by putting in a draft. Even if it could, there is a deeper question that has to be asked. What is the nature of the "sacrifice" we are asking military members to make? Is it truly in defense of the country or in the national interest? Is it based on sound foreign policy and really a last resort to all other known options? Is it a "war that will not end in our lifetime" or a well planned and calculated short-term strategy with an exit plan? Will it result in more or less security and international stability or in more war and terrorism? Will it unduly endanger the troops sent to fight it? Will the individual enlisted be treated fairly on the way in, during and after they survive and get out of the military? I ask these questions because in my view and that of many other Americans, the wars we have taken part in since the end of WWII do not meet these criteria.

8) And perhaps most important of all, is the conflict based on lies and is it morally defensible? To make an analogy, would it have made the genocide of Germany in WWII more "fair and equitable" if a proportionately representative segment of their youth had been conscripted into rotating duty at the concentration camps or in the wars of aggression abroad? This may not seem an apt analogy since the Congress and a democratic method at least nominally approve wars and domestic policies in the United States, not the President alone. Yet, despite an overwhelming public response ratio of 400-1,000 to one in most Congressional mail and communications from the public opposing the resolution to give President Bush the power to wage an undeclared war on Afghanistan and Iraq, only one Congress member stood up against the tide of acquiescence to that request for extra-Constitutional power.

The current Selective Service System continues to force young men to register at age 18 and to remain eligible to be called up during a mobilization until age 26. Draft registration is required in some states to get a driver's license or funds for college, and is also linked to all federal funding for college, job training and government employment. Refusal to register still carries stiff federal fines and penalties, though they are not currently being enforced.

Once a mobilization draft is declared by the President and implemented by Congress, young people turning 20 that year will be chosen by lottery for quick orders to report to duty, leaving little time to consider options or file claims. Some will opt for enlistment, some will attempt to resist, and some will comply, but most will make those choices without real understanding of the consequences or support. Just as their counterparts in high school are enlisting in the Delayed Entry Program before they know their options, and being threatened when they change their minds.

Selective Service is still funded on a "standby" basis, and it maintains lists of registrants and works to insure that all males register through mailings, promotions and threats. Recently, draft board members chosen in the early 80's have exhausted their 20-year terms, and there was a massive push to replace them that raised fear of an imminent draft. The Pentagon and other officials continue to state that they do not currently need conscription, but hold it open as a future option. Selective Service recently floated a proposal for a skills-based draft (doctors, nurses, computer technicians, etc.). Actually implementing a mobilization would be costly, requiring extensive training facilities for troops that would only serve for a few years.

What say do the American people really have in the conception or conduct of the wars we are being asked to participate in and sacrifice for? And what right to individual service members have to exercise their conscience in favor of international laws of war and common decency once they are under military command in wartime.

The language of the proposed draft bill actually reverses the rights of conscientious objectors to war at a time when they need to be expanded. Military objectors filing for discharge at the start of Operation Desert Storm under the "stop-loss" mobilization regulations were forced to refuse orders to battle instead. Some were beaten, shackled and sent to the front lines as they had been during WWI, and makeshift prisons were built in Saudi Arabia to house thousands of Black objectors in the field during the first Gulf War. Most ended up with punitive discharges instead of their legal and moral rights.

In my view, the solution lies in the nature of the US military itself and the wars it is being called on to wage abroad. Our military forces have been engaged around the world since the end of WWII, not merely in defense of the United States, but in "containment" policies and in support of "anti-Communist" dictatorships abroad, in both overt wars and covert operations that have gained us many enemies around the globe. The placement of US forces abroad has more to do with the location of strategic resources than it does with protecting political ideals or ideologies. We have put far more dictators and oppressive regimes in power and propped up their corrupt rule than we have established any sort of true democratic or popular rule.

The "democracy" we want to spread abroad has more to do with hand-picked leaders that will support the "structural adjustments" of the IMF/World Bank and the so-called global "free market" than with the aspirations of the people in a given society. If the American people knew the real history and role our troops have been forced to play abroad, they might view the Pentagon in a different light.

Thus, I believe the real solution lies in making the Pentagon and the military truly democratic institutions within a broader democracy. The size and budget of the military, its role abroad and at home, its proper function, and the wars it will be called on to carry out should be decided by the public as a whole, not behind closed doors by a few, or by entrenched committees of a Congress made up primarily of former veterans, and others beholden to the campaign funding and lucrative contracts of the military-industrial complex in their states.

Right now, the Pentagon is a sacred cow, exempt from effective oversight or criticism, and bloated with the majority of the discretionary tax budget. It is a huge military, even by the standards of the size of our society, and its funding outpaces all the rest of the world combined. It is the last bastion of undemocratic internal rule; all other industrialized countries have long abandoned functioning on a Prussian autocratic model. It is the employer of last resort and yet few benefit from the promises it makes to them.

Only 35% of those veterans eligible use the GI Educational Bill funds, and only 15 % graduate from college. Many are not eligible for the fund even if they paid in for it, and they forfeit those payments at discharge. Thus the military has made over $2 billion on the program, while Black enlistment rates have risen and Black College enrollment rates have declined.

The benefits available to veterans after WWI, Korea and even Vietnam have disappeared in large part, and even current Veteran medical and other benefits were slashed in Congress on the same day they voted the current group of enlisted members into Iraq. Veterans with bad discharges face 65-100% employment discrimination in the civilian world, and over 70% of the homeless in our streets are military veterans. The psychological and physical costs of war have still not been properly assessed or addressed by the VA or the society as a whole, including the rise in domestic and other violence by military veterans, combat and non-combat alike. Health issues resulting from exposure to Agent Orange and Depleted Uranium have yet to be recognized or fully compensated or treated by the VA.

We need to raise the issues of class and race discrimination in times of war and in relation to military service, inside the military as well as outside. As the Iraq war grows and the planned conflicts expand, there is already pressure for more troops. The Pentagon continues to rely on the poverty draft. But, we must not address that discrepancy in isolation from the issues of the military and the wars it wages. If we make the entire system truly democratic, then people will join because they want to and from pride of duty and sacrifice for real democracy, and they will be treated accordingly. Right now, it might feel fairer to distribute the misery of serving in these misguided wars, but as would have been the case in my analogy about conscripted service in German concentration camps, there are larger issues that must be faced instead.

Ultimately, the choice between a poverty draft and paper conscription is a false choice. We are told that we must have a military to survive in a hostile world. But is "a military" synonymous with this military? The Pentagon presides over the least democratic and the most blatantly racist, sexist and authoritarian institution within a supposedly democratic society. GI's who are expected to die fighting for our rights and freedoms lack those same rights while they are in the military. We are the last industrialized country that does not have a military union for its members. We are the last advanced country that has a military based on the Prussian model, with an internal military judicial system separate from civilian courts.

The real questions are what sort of military do we want, what role should it play at home and abroad, what are its limitations, what size should it be, how much of the tax budget should it control, and how should it treat the troops and those it wages war against. Right now, the US military is exempt from most international treaties concerning types of warfare and weapons and from international courts of law or tribunals that address crimes against humanity or Geneva Accord conventions. These are much harder questions to ask than whether there should be a renewed draft of young men and women into the military, and none in Congress or public discourse seem willing to address them. Instead, such decisions are made behind the closed doors of the Military-Industrial-Intelligence Complex that President Eisenhower saw coming and felt obliged to warn others about its undue influence.

When we have a truly democratic military, the President will have to draw the "Coalition of the willing" from among the troops themselves. Imagine if troops could decide whether to participate in each war that is being proposed, and that the President's ability to initiate a war abroad would be limited to times when he could raise at least a set percentage of troops willing to fight it. Imagine if the last page of our federal tax forms included a chart that allowed us to directly allocate where we want our monies spent, real "Taxation With Representation". And imagine a military that respected individual conscience and the international rules of war, and that treated all its members the way citizens are treated in the society at large. Imagine a military that operates on informed consent carrying out the democratic will of an informed citizenry. Imagine that ending war might be the best way to honor veterans.

When the first Vietnamese ambassador to the United Nations spoke at the end of the Vietnam war, he listed many reasons for the victory of the people against the US intervention there. Foremost was, of course, the struggle of the people themselves. But the second item, seen as more important than international solidarity and support and many other reasons, was the American GI movement of resistance to the war on the field. That resistance, at home and abroad, broke the back of the Pentagon plans for a wider war into Cambodia, Laos and the whole East-Asian sector. It changed military thinking and planning, and has to this day.

No modern society has can make any really progressive or democratic change until the nature of their military has changed as well. Otherwise, the country will be faced with a coup d'etat by the forces of reaction that remain in place.

Young people today are facing these questions and issues, often without any historical framework, accurate information or adult support. They are often forced to forge or violate their conscience in the cauldron of war rather than explore it in a supportive environment with time and knowledge to make the hard decisions. People already inside the military and veterans struggle with issues of racial and sexual discrimination, justice and the demands of conscience. Opposing a particular war or aspect of war is still considered "selective objection" under current law, and does not qualify as "conscientious objection" for discharge or deferment. Yet, the United States led the formation of the Nuremberg tribunals that convicted Nazi officers for following orders to commit crimes against humanity or other illegal or immoral acts. This implies, as does international law, that a soldier must decide about the morality and legality of what they are being ordered to do.

What are those of us who oppose war doing to assist young people in the ranks and before they enlist to make well-informed choices, and to defend those choices when they do? How many know Selective Service law and regulations well enough to help a young person decide on registration or prepare documentation for a claim of conscientious objection or other deferments if they are mobilized? How many reach out to the targets of military recruiters with veteran's stories, real statistics about military life and discharge, and civilian options that meet their needs? How many know military rules and regulations well enough to assist people seeking discharge or facing military charges when they go absent? How many who call for resistance are there to support those who make that decision and face the real consequences? How many are willing to end the fruitless debate between Mahatma Gandhi and John Wayne that has left the military intact and growing without adequate oversight or control? How many are willing to do more than protest it the street to change the military and foreign policy and structure that currently dominate this country? How many are ready to do the work necessary to organize and link potential draftees, targets of the poverty draft, enlisted members, recently discharged veterans and their families in opposition to the current military policies and wars?

There are organizations doing this work, and parents, students and teachers should be aware of them:

National Network to Oppose Militarization of Youth (new counter-recruitment network)
Youth and Militarism Program, AFSC
1515 Cherry Street
Philadelphia, PA 19102
215-241-7176
http://www.youthandthemilitary.org

GI Rights Hotline (counseling network for those in the military)
800-394-9544
girights@objector.org

Center on Conscience and War (youth and GI counseling on conscience and objection)
1830 Connecticut Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20009
(202) 483-2220
1-800-379-2679
http://www.nisbco.org

Citizen Soldier (counseling and support for GI and veterans rights)
267 Fifth Ave., Suite 901
New York, NY 10016
(212) 679-2250
Fax (212) 679-2252
http://www.citizen-soldier.org

Veterans for Peace (national network opposed to war and countering recruitment)
Wilson "Woody" Powell
World Community Ctr.
438 North Skinker
St. Louis MO 63130
VOICE (314) 725-6005
FAX (314) 725-7103
http://www.veteransforpeace.org

Military Families Speak Out (families of GI's in combat)
P.O. Box 549
Jamaica Plain, MA 02130
617-522-9323
mfso@mfso.org
http://www.mfso.org

CCCO: An Agency for Military and Draft Counseling
405 14th St. #205
Oakland, CA 94612
510-465-1617
Fax 510 465-2459
http://www.objector.org

CCCO: An Agency for Military and Draft Counseling
1515 Cherry St
Philadelphia, PA 19102
215-563-8787
http://www.objector.org
Fax 215-567-2096

C.H.O.I.C.E.S. (local counter-recruitment, opposition to No Child Left Behind and JROTC)
Committee for High School Options and Information on Careers, Education and Self-Improvement
PO Box 7147
Washington, DC 20044
202-583-5347

Washington Peace Letter

WHERE DO SOLDIERS COME FROM?

By John Judge
August/September 2004
Volume 40, Number 2

Washington Peace Letter

WHERE DO SOLDIERS COME FROM?

By John Judge August/September 2004 Volume 40, Number 2

By John Judge
August/September 2004
Volume 40, Number 2