Military should end missions, not restore draft
In his thought-provoking article, "Asking 'someone else's son' to fight" (May17), Dan Rodricks points out the cultural/class dichotomy between those who serve, i.e., those who may be maimed and killed, or psychologically damaged in the defense of our country, while the rest of the American people go about their business, oblivious to the sacrifices being made on their behalf.
I would add that what is left out of Rodricks' article is the nature of wars being fought by the U.S. in the last 50 years. To cite two examples, the Vietnam War and the pre-emptive war and subsequent occupation of Iraq were not fought as a last resort in the defense of the United States. These wars had nothing to do with national defense; nor, for that matter, does sending additional troops to Afghanistan.
The military draft provides the government with a pool of young people that can be used as cannon fodder for military adventurism around the world. Lies and propaganda were used to gain the support of the American people and keep these wars funded with tax dollars.
Young people may be more likely to join the armed forces if they know they can question their commanding officer and resign if they discover they have been lied to regarding their "mission." Soldiers, like their civilian counterparts, deserve to be paid a living wage, and as veterans they are entitled to benefits including health care that are enjoyed by the politicians who put them in harm's way.
If the military is stretched thin, it may be that it is overextended and should begin coming home from misguided missions.
Lee Lears, Annapolis
Sun gets it wrong on torture debate
Your editorial, "A tortured debate" (May 22), ends with the question "Do we have more to fear from domestic terrorists roaming around the country, or from foreign militants in maximum security cells?"
Your question is comparing apples with lettuce. What your question should have been is 1) "do we have more to fear from domestic terrorists roaming around the country or those outside of our country," and 2) "do we have more to fear from foreign militants in a maximum security cells" in the United States or off shore? Your feeble attempt to combine the two unrelated issues into one question for partisan reasons has not gone unnoticed by your informed readers.
Ron Wirsing, Havre de Grace
A moment of truth for American values
The debate on torture and Guantanamo Bay ("A tortured debate," May 22) poses an important question for the United States. It is one thing to have a constitution or laws, and entirely another matter when it comes to implementing them in trying times when abandoning those laws and principles would seem most expedient.
For totalitarian governments the choice is easy, but for democratic ones it is a moment of truth. There was a reason why German soldiers preferred to be captured by American forces during the Second World War, and this was because they knew how they would be treated in U.S. custody as opposed to being captured by the Russians.
The true character of a nation or person is not best measured on a pleasant day, but rather it is made manifest and accessed on days when all precepts are tested to the core.
Nonso Umunna, Baltimore
