(Ensign, a lawyer, is Director of Citizen Soldier, a GI/veterans' rights advocacy organization based in New York City.  His most recent book is: America's Military Today: The Challenge of Militarism, New Press (2004)

* * *

The third anniversary of America's war to occupy Iraq is a good time to assess the state of the movement that is working to end this illegal war.

George W. Bush and his cronies insist that there are no similarities between their current war in Iraq and America's long and disastrous intervention in Vietnam.  While these two wars are actually similar in several respects, there is one crucial difference. Unlike Vietnam, the US armed forces deployed to Iraq are almost entirely drawn from America's working class and its underemployed. For example, only four members of Congress had a child serving in the US military in 2004.

One scholar of the Vietnam war, Chris Appy, divides the 2.5 million GIs who served there into three groups of roughly equal size.  One third were draftees, another third were draft-motivated "volunteers" and the final third were "true" volunteers. Appy argues that the second and third categories were predominantly working-class kids who lacked the resources that allowed their more affluent brethren to go to college or find draft-deferred employment. While the first group-draftees-did contain many middle-class men, the system offered a variety of occupational, medical and educational exemptions which allowed those with the expertise and money to escape serving. As a result, Appy estimates that about 80% of those who served in Vietnam came from working-class or poor families.(1)    

Nonetheless, though the proportion of middle-class GIs was relatively small, the Vietnam-era military consisted of a more representative cross section of society than the one we have today.  In addition to becoming almost entirely working class and poor, the present military has changed in in other ways as well. For one thing, it's much smaller, having shrunk from 2.1 million active duty GIs at the end of the first Gulf War in 1991 to just 1.4 million today. This downsizing has meant that Reserve and National Guard troops have had to be activated to shoulder much of the combat burden in Iraq.  About 35% of the U.S. troops currently serving in Iraq are reservists. Another big change from the past is that female soldiers now make up 15% of the total force and serve in most military jobs--except for some involving combat.

The most important factor pushing working class families to the center of the Iraq war debate has been the abolition of the draft and the shift to an "all volunteer" military.

When he orchestrated the end of conscription in 1973, Nixon likely intended to insulate middle and upper class children from death and injury in future wars. (2) If those called to fight are far removed from those wielding political power, then elected officials can passively support unpopular military interventions without fearing much constituent pressure. Further, the death or wounding of a "volunteer" can be rationalized merely the risk he or she assumed in exchange for receiving the benefits of the enlistment contract.

My sense is that there has been less public outcry about the deaths of 2,300 GIs and the wounding of 17,000 more (as of February 2006) than there would have been during the Vietnam War. This may be partly due to the media blackout Bush has imposed on returning coffins return home or when reporters want to report on the problems of injured veterans.  But I think the identity of the victims also helps explain the difference.  Statistically, most of the casualties so far have been ordinary kids from the small rural towns and downtrodden urban neighborhoods that are invisible to most public officials and the media.

Milton Friedman: Father of the "All Volunteer" Military

Nixon's decision to scrap the draft in the waning days of the Vietnam War, led some to think that the antiwar movement had undermined America's ability to wage foreign wars of intervention. They erroneously thought that their anti-draft movement had disrupted conscription.  In reality, near all the 4,000 local draft boards functioned efficiently throughout the war, except in anti-war hubs like Oakland or Ann Arbor. Each month, they processed and shipped up to 40,000 new draftees to the Army and Marines.(3)

Many staunch anti-war activists such as Senator George McGovern, Coretta Scott King and Dr. Benjamin Spock avidly supported the National Council to Repeal the Draft.   There's no evidence that they ever seriously considered the downside of such a policy.(4)

Conservative economist Friedman served on a blue ribbon panel that devised Nixon's plan for an "all-volunteer" military.  Friedman had proselytized that the draft was responsible for three fourths of the opposition to the war.  Reading between the lines, his goal was to eliminate conscription as an issue around which an anti-war movement could rally. One measure of his success, in my opinion, is that the level of protest against the Iraq war today is considerably lower than it was against the Vietnam war at the three year mark. Granted, our military adventure in Iraq, so far, has involved one third of the troops deployed to Vietnam.

The Labor Movement Awakens

  The fact that all the "boots on the ground" in Iraq today belong to the sons and daughters of working class or poor families, has not been lost on rank and file workers-- particularly those belonging to unions which give them a voice to collectively express political sentiments.

During Vietnam, George Meany's AFL-CIO enforced a pro-war stance on its member unions. Drawing from a deep well of anti communism, Meany helped Nixon and Kissinger by defending their illegal war.  Although it's been well documented that workers' children bore the brunt of that war's human toll, only a few union leaders dared to publicly oppose the war.

Unfortunately for George W. Bush, big labor's tradition of toeing the corporate line on foreign policy has crumbled like the Berlin Wall. (For a detailed analysis, see New Labor Forum, September 2005)(5)

The groundswell of anti-war sentiment that was mobilized by the U.S. Labor Against War (USLAW) coalition culminated in a dramatic moment at the AFL-CIO National Convention in July 2005, when a standing ovation greeted the adoption of a strong anti-war resolution.  A number of state AFL CIO federations followed suit by approving similar resolutions.

According to US LAW organizer Gene Bruskin, one of their most successful projects has been a 2005 national tour of Iraqi trade unionists who advocated U.S. military withdrawal when they addressed large crowds in over twenty U.S. cities.  They recently completed work on a 30 minute documentary about the tour which can be ordered at: www.uslaboragainstwar.org.

One of US LAW's priorities for 2006 is to deepen links between the labor movement and groups like Military Families Speak Out (MFSO) and Iraq Veterans Against War (IVAW) by sponsoring public forums across the country. Bruskin reports that his group is already planning such meetings for San Francisco, Detroit and New York. Similar gatherings will be held in other cities over the next few months.

History was made on September 24, 2005, when hundreds of anti-war unionists rallied, for the first time ever, in the AFL-CIO's headquarters building before marching out to join the huge anti-war march assembled on Washington's Mall. 

Veterans and the War

There are over 24 million military veterans in the U.S. today.  Traditionally, three large veteran organizations, the American Legion, Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW) and the Disabled American Veterans (DAV) with a combined membership of about five million, have dominated the political discussion of veterans' issues both in Washington and in hometown America. Because many combat veterans suffered wounds, both physical and/or psychic, when outsiders criticize military operations they participated in it's sometimes interpreted as an insult to their courage or to the memories of buddies who gave their lives.

The dominance of the "Big Three" veteran groups began to weaken during the last years of the Vietnam war, because their rabid pro-war stance began turning off many returning Vietnam veterans. Their credibility also took a hit when they endorsed the Pentagon's line that GIs hadn't been harmed by to the herbicide Agent Orange because the military had a policy of not exposing them.  

As their credibility waned with Vietnam veterans, two new organizations came into being; Vietnam Veterans Against the War (VVAW) and the Vietnam Veterans of America (VVA) Both started out as staunchly anti-war, but within a few years, the more progressive VVA leaders were voted out by political conservatives who were content to follow the Big Three's lead on foreign policy issues.

VVAW was founded by a small group of anti war vets in 1967, but it grew into a broadly based national organization as anti-war sentiment intensified in 1969-70.  Its growth was fueled by creative and highly visible protests--Operation RAW, the Winter Soldier Investigation (war crimes), and Dewey Canyon III, when vets threw back their medals at the Capitol. These attracted wide media coverage as hundreds and sometimes thousands of angry veterans rallied against the war.(6) VVAW reached it peak around 1972 when it had 25,000 members loosely affiliated with dozens of chapters across the country.

A less-publicized, but equally important VVAW project was its development of therapeutic "rap groups" which provided help for vets suffering from combat-related stress. At the time, the VA defined "post Vietnam syndrome" in such a way that most veterans couldn't qualify for assistance.

Conceived by a group of well-respected psychiatric volunteers such as Dr. Robert Jay Lifton and Dr. Chaim Shatan, these rap groups spread across the country, eventually convincing Congress and the VA to change the rules covering disability.  Dozens of Vet Centers were created within the VA system in the late 1970s with a mandate to locate and help ailing Vietnam veterans.

Unfortunately, political factionalism and sectarian squabbles within VVAW supplanted its previous organizing successes and by the time the war ended in 1975 the group was reduced to a few hundred active members in a handful of functioning chapters. It should be noted that VA studies later concluded that 30% of the Vietnam vets with "significant combat experience" suffered from PTSD which, in many cases, went untreated.

The Vietnam Veterans of America, on the other hand, has been able to hold onto a membership of about 30,000 and a $11 million annual budget because it transformed itself into a veterans service agency that avoids political controversy and focuses on helping members file claims for VA disability and health care.

Veterans for Peace (VFP) www.veteransforpeace.org

This organization was founded in 1986 by veterans who'd cut their political teeth within the anti-war movements of the Vietnam era.  In recent years, it has grown rapidly into a national organization with roughly 5,000 members organized into 127 chapters nationwide.

Michael Uhl, editor of the VFP Newsletter observed; "VFP became what VVAW never could become—a mass based movement. In many cases, we see old VVAW cadre re-activating as part of VFP."  Executive Director Michael McPherson points out that even today the majority of VFP members are older, drawn from the Korean and Vietnam wars. Relatively few veterans of Gulf War One have joined.  Veterans of the current Iraq war are urged to join Iraq Veterans Against War (IVAW) which VFP is actively helping to organize

McPherson is proud of the progressive role played by VFP.  "We act as a bridge between veterans and the broader movements for peace and social justice."  Commenting on VFP's relatively-small size, Paul Cox, a VFP leader from the Bay Area observed, "We ask a lot of more of our members than do the traditional vets' organizations.  Our guys take seriously the special credibility veterans enjoy with the general public. Hence, most of us are highly motivated to speak out against military folly."

Iraq Veterans Against War (IVAW) www.ivaw.net

Six Iraq veterans announced the formation of this new organization at the VFP's annual convention in Boston in July, 2004. Since then, the older organization has committed staff help and fiscal sponsorship to the fledgling group. At present, it consists of about 300 members nationwide. Peace activists like Leslie Cagan, UCPJ coordinator, thinks that this small number is mostly due to a lack of experienced organizers. The serious psychological issues faced by many Iraqi veterans also inhibits some of them from becoming politically active. One recent health survey published in the New England Journal of Medicine found that 17% of the returning Iraq vets suffer from post traumatic stress disorder.  Some experts have already predicted that the PTSD rates from this war will likely be  higher than those for Vietnam.

IVAW has a three-part program.  First, is a call for the immediate withdrawal of all US forces. Second, is that real aid be provided to allow the people of Iraq to rebuild their country.  Third, is a demand that all returning veterans receive quality health care.

Pat Resta, IVAW's organizer for New England, served for 9 months in Iraq as a medic with an activated National Guard unit. He readily acknowledges his group's debt to the  earlier efforts of veterans.  "If we didn't have the guys in VVA setting an example, many of us wouldn't have come out publicly. The military is a strange place when you start to question the party line. You feel ostracized and start to ask yourself if you're the only one who feels the way you do."

Resta also commented on the obstacles to recruiting members for IVAW.  "It's not easy for our guys to go out and become active.  They have to deal with a lot of issues like PTSD.  Some are still in the military and are subject to harassment (if they speak out). The overwhelming desire is to put (the war) behind you and get on with your life.  It's not fun to dwell on these things, so school, work and other things become distractions."

The threat of military harassment to which Resta refers is brought on by the fact that every one in the military today remains in the Individual Ready Reserve (IRR) for eight years, even if they only committed to two or three years on active duty. Due to personnel shortages, several thousand veterans in the IRR have been recently ordered back to active-duty even though many thought they fulfilled their military obligations.

VFP leader Paul Cox points to another problem in organizing Iraqi war veterans.  "How do we reach out to the tens of thousands of vets who are military reservists?  They are considerably older than active duty GIs and joined the reserves without expecting to be sent to a combat zone."

"If IVAW decides to seek visibility and members by organizing dramatic, media-attracting protests in the tradition of VVAWÉwe can quickly see that Vietnam and Iraq are very different kinds of wars, taking place in very different historical contexts," Michael Uhl has written. "What was possible for VVAW may not be the cards for IVAW.  We don't know yet, because IVAW is in the process of writing its own history."

Military Families Speak Out (MFSO) www.mfso.org

When long-time Boston labor educators Nancy Lessin and Charley Richardson learned that their Marine son was being shipped to the Persian Gulf in 2002 they decided to take action.  Although one short-lived families group, Military Families Support Network had been established during the first Gulf War, there was no precedent for a families group that would advocate both for immediate withdrawal and for the medical and social needs of family members serving in the armed forces.

As Nancy Lessin explained in an interview; "We'd signed up 200 families before Bush invaded Iraq, but we weren't sure what would happen once the troops were actually fighting a war. A spate of national publicity about our work brought in another 200 families within a few weeks of Bush's invasion.  Since then, we've continued to grow to nearly 3,000, with chapters in the process of formation in about fifteen different parts of the country."

Lessin estimates that for every family that actually joins MFSO there are probably another 20-30 families who, for various reasons, particularly harassment by the military, remain silent but endorse the group's goals. "We regularly get emails and letters from families that say, ÔI can't sign my name, but thanks so much for what you're doing.'"

  On the class composition of the group, Lessin notes, "Our membership mirrors that of the military today. The vast majority are working people who hail from rural areas, small towns and big cities. Our members belong to over twenty different labor unions. They span the political spectrum; everything from pacifists, to military careerists to die hard Republicans."  Lessin notes that female members outnumber men by a fair margin. She also sadly reports that about 80 MFSO families have lost a loved one to the war.

Lessin is optimistic about MFSO's future."We are out there on the edge with the families, pushing the boundaries of the debate. More and more people are coming to share our position of immediate withdrawal and proper care for our troops once they're home.

MFSO also works closely with another new support group, the Gold Star Families for Peace (www.gsfp.org) Cindy Sheehan, who galvanized anti-war sentiment last summer by picketing Bush's ranch and demanding that he discuss her son's death, is one of the group's leaders.

Families of the Fallen for Change (FFFC) www.fofchange.org

In the last months of 2005, a new family organization has been created.  Their difference with MFSO is spelled out on their website: "We consider the immediate withdrawal of troops irresponsible.  Leaving before Iraq is stabilized could have negative consequences for stability throughout the Middle East."  Instead, the group calls for establishing "benchmarks" for withdrawing US troops as soon as "reasonably" possible.

The group was established by Paul Schroeder and Rosemary Palmer, parents of Augie, one of the twenty Marine reservists from the Cleveland area who was killed in August, 2005.  Ms. Palmer stated that the group has been contacted by nearly a thousand other military families since publicity about their group appeared in the New York Times and on Fox TV's "Hardball" in December, 2005. "Our focus is on Congress. We believe that's the place from which change can come," Paul, her husband added.

Resistance in the Ranks  

So far, the Iraq war has not led to the widespread acts of resistance which eventually undermined the American military's ability to conduct ground operations in Vietnam.   The Army and Marine Corps both report that desertion rates were higher before the invasion of Iraq than they are today. Applications for conscientious objector (CO) status in the Army however, have steadily increased since 2000, but the total numbers are quite small. About 110 soldiers filed in 2004, roughly a four-fold increase.  About half of them were successful.

There have been several highly publicized military refuseniks, most notably Camilo Mejia, Kevin Benderman, Pablo Paredes and Katherine Jashinsky, the first female GI to publicly resist. Three years into the Vietnam war, thousands of GIs had already deserted, with many of them seeking exile status in Canada, Sweden, and France.  None of these countries offer political refuge to deserters today.

Many GIs today believe that their service in Afghanistan and Iraq fulfills a patriotic duty to avenge the September 11 terrorist attacks and help to prevent their reoccurance.

The weaker resistance is also due to the "all volunteer" concept that each soldier must honor a contract which he or she "freely" signed in search of economic benefits

 Is There a GI Movement in Our Future?

One of the greatest achievements of Vietnam anti-war movement was the organization of a GI coffeehouse and support movement. The first coffeehouse was opened by civilian activists outside Ft. Jackson, S.C. in late 1967. Within a few weeks, hundreds of GIs visited during their off duty hours. Over the next year, similar projects were established outside twenty more bases, including Ft. Hood, TX and Ft. Leonard Wood, MO.  Several of the projects suffered severe harassment by the local police who were cooperating with military authorities. Some were able to fight off this harassment and grew stronger in the process.  Others were forced to shut down, finding the legal assault  too intense.

At its peak in 1971, this movement had grown to include off-base projects adjacent to every major combat base in U.S. and at a number of American bases abroad. These informal centers combined elements of a coffeehouse (think Starbucks with psychedelic posters) legal counseling center, and a bookstore. These centers, which were staffed by civilian activists and active duty GIs, beamed a strong anti-war message to off-duty GIs. They provided a sanctuary in a dreary base town to soldiers seeking a place to socialize with civilians, get a dose of the "counter culture" and escape the rigidities of military life for a few hours.(7)

This amazing movement produced 260 different anti-war newspapers and newsletters—most of which were published and distributed by the coffeehouses. One of the earliest and most influential of these was The Vietnam GI, which was first published in 1967 and mailed to over 3,000 GIs serving in Vietnam.  The military attempted to disrupt distribution of these publications whenever it could and many folded after printing only a few issues.

Prospects for GI Organizing Today

One of the main attractions of the GI coffeehouses during Vietnam was that GIs identified them with the "counter culture" in its many guises.  Psychedelic paraphernalia and "acid rock" naturally fanned the sparks of anti-authoritarianism among GIs.  This produced a heady elixir which encouraged challenges to all forms of authority--dress, sexual mores, gender roles, social conventions and, of course, the military's vaunted chain-of-command.  (One political demand of the anti-war American Serviceman's (sic) Union was; "an end to the 'sir-ing and saluting' of officers.") 

As was noted at the outset, the U.S. military has undergone enormous changes since the Vietnam war. In some ways, these mirror the immense changes that have occurred in all parts of American society.

During the Vietnam era most GIs were single, received very low pay, slept in bunk beds in dreary barracks, ate their meals in chow halls and ventured off base to get drunk on Saturday night.  Today, a majority of all enlisted persons are married with one or more children. Many GIs drive expensive vans and pickups to Applebee's or Mickey D's for dinner. Afterwards they're as likely to spend hours surfing the internet or playing video games as they are to hang out in base town taverns.  They often live off base in apartments loaded with modern appliances--even if they (and the wheels) were bought on a time-payment plan

Clearly, this is not your father's or brother's Army.  Any GI project that hoped to attract GIs today would first have to understand exactly how young people today approach political issues. Any such project would want to appeal to both female and male service-members. A child care component would be essential for any social event and internet access would be a basic essential.  Further, without the enormous "big tent" of the Vietnam, civil rights, women's and counter-cultural movements to lend aid and support, would-be organizers would have to pick their targets very carefully if they are to have a chance of success.

1)    Working Class War: American Combat Soldiers & Vietnam, by Christian G. Appy, Univ of N. Carolina Press (1993) pp.28-30.

2)    America's Military Today: The Challenge of Militarism, by Tod Ensign, The New Press (2004) pp 332-34

3)    The Draft: 1940-1973, by George Q Flynn, Univ.of Kansas Press (1993) p. 265

4)    Ensign, America's Military Today, p 334

5)    "Iraq and the Labor Movement: The Remarkable Story" by Michael C. Zweig, New Labor Forum, September 2005

6)    Home to War: A History of the Vietnam Veteran Movement by Gerry Nicosia, Three Rivers Press, (2001)

7)    Soldiers in Revolt, by David Cortright, Haymarket Books, (2005) pp. 50-74