There are times in the course of history when many individuals and nations come face to face with the tragedies of war. People have questioned the necessity and validity of such a system of organized violence based on humanistic and moral grounds. Others have craved it with conviction and zeal as a means to a noble end and a good career. Others, yet, have sought it for purely economic and power based reasons.

War is a man-made violent event that is beyond comparison with any other. It carries within it contradictions. The act of war finds its impetus in politics, economics, religion, and nationalism but, as the historian John Keegan asserts, war is fought by men whose values and skills are far removed from those of politicians. It is from the perspective of this contradictory state that the proposed military draft (twin bills, S89 and HR163), will be challenged.

The ideology of politicians is very different from the ideology of the soldier, the "political culture" versus the "warrior culture." While the "warrior culture" may be connected to the "political culture," it does not necessarily identify with it. Our laws and religions strive for a society where human life is valued for its own sake. We create institutions designed to promote justice and liberty through the process of the law. Soldiers, like other citizens, are raised within such a moral framework. This changes with indoctrination into the "warrior culture". Slowly, the world of the soldier becomes parallel to our world. Theirs is a world nurtured by society, but a world that is not part of it. Society values the ideas of peace and tolerance, yet in a perverted exercise in logic, killing and destruction of property during wartime cease to be immoral or criminal. Violence becomes the necessary means to achieve an end. Within that culture of peace and violence, the contradiction eventually takes its toll on soldiers. Soldiers are trained to uphold moral principles, but they are told to do it using destructive means and, paradoxically, under the strictest codes of military justice and law. They are instructed in methods of self-control, sacrifice, and brute force. They are expected to "befriend" the people they conquer and share bread with the civilians they may have to shoot one day. They lead a regimented life, but are anxious to be carefree when they go home. Their world-view and conduct are sometimes at opposites with that of their countrymen.

Society encourages the soldier but is uncomfortable with him and what he represents. He is the dreaded necessity. Society does not live the life of the soldier because it, in the guise of the politician, has devised separate rules of morality and conduct for him that are at odds with what is acceptable in peacetime. Society and the politician do not have to live with the consequences of such a contradiction. The "warriors" do. For those of them who engage in or witness violent acts will experience the worst of both worlds. They face the agonies of war on the battlefront and the heartache of mistrust and neglect at home.

In the military, we create a separate working class that is expected and encouraged to commit acts of violence and be violated for the benefit of the few and for maintaining the abstract concept we label "the State." We praise the troops and "support" them before and during battle and to achieve political gains, but we ignore them when they come home broken in body and spirit. After the war and the homecoming parades, they lose their aura of mystery for they were the means to an end. Their experiences are similar to the sacrificial victims whose young and short lives of fame only last until they take their last breath on the chopping block. Our ancestors sacrificed their children to appease their gods. We sacrifice our children to appease our modern-day deity, the State. We fill their spirits with pride when they are whole and we justify their suffering. Some of us will even learn to pretend that we do not see their agony. Even in their most painful time of need, we continue to give them a contradictory message, "you are valuable as long as there is war and as long as you can perform like a man in that war." That is why soldiers are not "at home" when they come home. Their place is within their own "warrior culture," a culture that we created to serve the few, the greedy, and the immoral.

Tragically, many of those soldiers do operate from a strict moral perspective; a condition that is non-existent among most politicians and that is difficult to reconcile with the culture of the politician.

In war, there is always a need to expand the military. The draft is on the table once more for that purpose. At this point in time, soldiers are vulnerable because of the pressures they are facing due to the "protracted war on terrorism" and its ensuing imperialist manifestations. At the same time, they are neither blind to the contradictions they live in, nor to the dishonesty of their society. The unfolding saga of lies emanating from the mouths of people they learned to respect and obey will ferment the feelings of discontent. If we ignore the signs of impending military escalation and allow the draft to become a reality, we have contributed to the separation of the majority of our youth into the "warrior culture."

One cannot foretell the future, but one can make predictions based on past human behavior. If the "warrior culture" becomes dissatisfied with the dishonesty of its politicians and its nation, it will take matters into its own hands "armed" with the moral principles it was raised to value and it will demand our respect.

Marilyn Farhat.