Michelle Witmer, daughter of a New Berlin family, has died in the fighting in Iraq, and her parents are appealing to keep their other girls from returning to a combat zone. Their plea is likely to be granted. One who had been serving in the same unit will stay home, since her tour of duty was nearing an end, but the other would, under ordinary circumstances, be returning to duty.
\Saving Private Ryan"" was based on a true story, and based on the passed, the U.S. government is often reluctant to allow multiple siblings to die in combat-it's bad press, after all. Even worse press, though, would be the loss of a group of sisters. This is what makes the granting of the Witmer family's appeal, made to both the military and politicians, a highly likely event.
Women's service in the military, while slowly becoming a matter of course, remains a sensitive topic. Putting them in the front lines becomes even more contentious, especially to the more traditional among the population, and probably the military brass. Whether it's the issue of more sensitive natures, or traditional societal roles, the military is still a predominately male institution. Most obviously, women are still not required to register with the Selective Service, unlike every male who turns 18.
Outside the feminist ideals of equality and basic issues of fairness, a woman's exemption from this male right of passage doesn't seem a huge loss. Most would probably gladly exempt young men from it as well. Prior to the enormously misguided War on Terror, an all-volunteer army and long absence of the draft were enough to make one hope it would become unnecessary.
But in early 2003 a Democratic representative, Charles Rangel, D.-N.Y., in the run-up to the Iraq invasion, proposed reinstituting the draft in an attempt to prevent the inevitable war. His version would not have exempted women and it would not have exempted college students. All young people would be required to register, and all would be required to serve. Even conscientious objectors would be forced to serve in a non-military capacity.
The hope was that by exposing the children of the middle and upper classes, as well as the daughters of everyone, to the threat of military service, citizen protest might be raised to an even higher level and actually prevent the Bush administration from going through with its plans. For many senators and representatives, education would normally keep their children safe from combat, making it easier to give full approval for military operations. Many soldiers are the children of those without a lot of money, who join to fund college or because the benefits are better than other positions they could get.
A similar bill is now in the Senate. Like Rangel's bill, it was designed more to provoke protest and discussion rather than completely overhaul society. However, the bill will probably not leave the Senate floor. Poor men are now considered the standard cannon fodder and anything forcing women or the affluent into compulsory military (or even non-military service) will not be passed by politicians or accepted by the public. After all, fear of the draft turning delicate girls into hardened creatures was one of the reasons the Rangel's bill was eventually defeated.
Mention of the bill, however, will hopefully raise awareness of who is going to fight and what circumstances-often economic, in addition to a desire to serve-bring people there. The Witmer daughters joined the National Guard to pay for their schooling despite the reservations of their parents and served their country well. They did it of their own free will.
A draft seems an unnecessary thing, and hopefully will remain so. But if ever again instituted, a revised version such as Rangel's should be used if a draft is to be a fair one. And perhaps as more of their daughters and all the children of the privileged face death in another unnecessary war, those deciding to send soldiers to fight will decide not to.
