An unforgettable scene comes to my mind when I contemplate who Bush may have to use for soldiers after we devastate Iraq.

The scene is in All Quiet on the Western Front, a gory movie about World War I. A soldier, just back from the front lines, is speaking to a schoolroom full of kids. His pitch is, how glorious it is to fight (and die) for the Fatherland,

He was asked to speak there because the war had killed off most of the men, and all that was left at the bottom of the barrel were school children. .

At the rate we’re perpetuating wars, Bush, too, may well have to troll the bottom of the barrel, and sooner than he thinks. But not to worry. Having dealt from the bottom of the deck so long, dealing from the bottom may not cause him any distress.

But it should scare hell out of every American with young males in the family.

There are still thousands of troops in Iraq. The news media, mimicking the Pentagon, call these troops “coalition forces”, which is a crock. In fact, the vast majority of these troops are American, and represent a good chunk of the U.S. army.

Now, if the administration starts putting the arm on other Arab countries, where will the added troops come from? The soldiers who are fighting in Iraq today may be too exhausted and war-weary to start an assault on, say, Iran.

We can’t count on using more “coalition” forces either, since they were a dead-last minority at the start of the Iraqi war, and are today bringing more of their troops home. So there’s little reason to think they would ante up more bodies for a run at another Arab country.

Help from Israel would be as absent later as it is now—why should the Israeli army get involved when they have American grunts doing the fighting for them?

Bringing in more American troops seems to be Bush’s “new” strategy and if he drives it through the political opposition, the next question is, where does he plan to get them? Maybe he forgot that a major bulk of our Army is already eating sand-dune sandwiches in the torrid Iraqi desert, and the rest of it is scattered in 159 countries around the world.

Bush might call up more of the National Guard. Many NG men and women have already been called up to join the regular army in the war with Iraq. No reason why more of them wouldn’t be available and ready to give their lives to save some country.

Problem is, even the first call-up of the National Guard was a devious move to bump up the manpower numbers. Why devious? Because the U.S. Constitution says that the National Guard is actually a U.S. Militia, authorized by the Constitution, which defines the Militia’s functions and federal and state roles.

Article l, Section 8 provides that Congress shall have the power to “call forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress insurrections, and repel invasions.” The U.S. Congress has the job of organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, but officers and training are reserved for the state.

Read again those last two paragraphs. In calling up the National Guard (the Militia) for war in Iraq, the President seriously overstepped his constitutional authority (again) and must be held accountable.

First, the National Guard had no invasion to repel, no insurrection to suppress, and at that time no Laws of the Union to enforce. Second, in “times of war” the National Guard may indeed be called up, but we aren’t technically at war because no formal Declaration of War by Congress exists. We are in conflict in Iraq at this president’s discretion, and this is a dictatorial breach of executive power.  Third, only Congress is empowered to call forth the Militia (the National Guard) and I don’t recall this do-nothing Congress ever getting involved.

Since it did not do so, Congress has abdicated its responsibility to the American people and should also be held accountable, not for their action, but for their inaction.

If the president’s advisors insist on “neutralizing” more of the Arab states after (if ever) Iraq has been “democratized”, we can be sure that more of the National Guard will be called up.

But, hey, if it’s that easy to call up the Guard to fight an enemy, why did we wait for the Iraqi war to do so?  If one of the prime duties of the National Guard is to “repel invasions” (protect our shores), why hasn’t the Guard been patrolling our border states with Mexico and repelling illegal aliens from entering the U. S. and causing havoc to ranchers and farmers on American soil?

Finally, once George Bush has run us out of soldiers, and devastated the National Guard, the only move he has then is to institute the draft of young men; and when those begin to thin out, he can always order our school children to pick up a gun and “do their duty.”

After all, taking them right out the classroom seemed to work pretty well in All Quiet on the Western Front.” And chances are Bush saw the movie.

James T. Moore
http://jamestmoore.us/