Army - Stimulating Simulation

girls or unmarried women. The most
vulnerable refugees were identified and
given extra care. Children were mostly
well-wrapped in warm coats, hats and
scarves. A couple of women looked exhausted.
One wanted to find a place
where she could breastfeed her baby.
Most of those I talked to were from
Syria, but one or two were Iraqi.
They had all fled to Turkey, taken boats
to Greece, and from there had bused and
trained up to here. “Weren’t you afraid of
the sea?” I asked one man. “Yes, I was
very afraid,” he responded. Most had used
their savings to pay smugglers to take
them in small dinghies from Turkey to
the Greek islands. This trip was perilous,
with thousands drowning. But still they
came. As the Kenyan-born, U.K.-based
poet Warsan Shire wrote in “Home”:
You have to understand,
that no one puts their children in a boat
unless the water is safer than the land.
Little official information seemed available.
But details went back and forth over
the mobile messaging app WhatsApp
with relatives and friends who had made
the trip before them. When I asked
refugees where they were headed, most
had their eyes set on Germany.
In 2015, Germany accepted over a
million migrants, half of whom were
Syrians. In her New Year’s address, German
Chancellor Angela Merkel urged
Germans to welcome refugees and to be
“self-confident and free, humanitarian
and open to the world.” She told them
not to listen to racists who harbor “hatred
in their hearts.” She acknowledged
that coping with immigration will cost
Germany “time, effort and money,” but
she pledged that handled right, the challenges
of today would be the “opportunities
of tomorrow.”
Merkel did not make the decision to
accept so many refugees based on opinion
polls or to curry favor. She is doing
what she believes is the right thing to do,
consistent with her values as well as Germany’s
long-term interests to address
their declining population numbers. The
path ahead is fraught with risks from
fearmongers opposed to immigration, as
well as from terrorists who might hide
among the refugee population. However,
if the integration of the refugees is successful,
Merkel will be remembered for
her great courage, and Germans for their
generosity and humanity.
When I arrived back at John F.
Kennedy International Airport in New
York, I was picked up by my regular taxi
driver, a former Iraqi fighter pilot. He
had arrived as a refugee in the U.S. with
$700 to his name, but through hard
work had succeeded in buying a house
and a car. He had built a life for himself
and his family here, safe from the violence
ravaging the Middle East but far
from the grave of his son, who had been
murdered in the civil war. As we drove
E
very
toward Connecticut, I thought how
much refugees and veterans have in common:
the sense of alienation, the experience
of trauma, and the courage to move
forward with their lives. ■
Emma Sky, director of Yale World Fellows,
is author of The Unraveling: High Hopes
and Missed Opportunities in Iraq. She
served in Iraq from 2003 to 2004 as the
governorate coordinator of Kirkuk, and
from 2007 to 2010 as political adviser to
Gen. Raymond T. Odierno, then-commanding
general of U.S. Forces in Iraq.
Draft a Bad Idea,
With or Without Women
By Lt. Col. James Jay Carafano, U.S. Army retired
year or two, the draft comes in
from the cold as a matter of public
discussion. In December, Defense Secretary
Ash Carter’s announcement that the
Pentagon was opening all combat roles
to women immediately raised the question
of whether the Selective Service Act
should be revised to include women.
But the draft is not warfare, and including
women in the draft is an issue
quite distinct from—and with far different
considerations in play—than the issue
of placing women in combat. Each issue
should be considered on its own merit.
One fact is pertinent to both issues: The
Selective Service Act is largely an anachronism
that has scant relevance to how
America fields its modern military. From a
practical standpoint, it makes little difference
whether women are included or not.
Indeed, the debate over whether
women should be included in the draft is
just the latest example of calls for national
service that are more referenda on
American culture and social attitudes
than policy geared to field an effective
military as efficiently as possible.
Four months before Carter’s announcement,
retired Gen. Stanley Mc-
Chrystal and John McCain, R-Ariz.,
chairman of the Senate Armed Services
Committee, floated another trial balloon.
In a commentary for CNN.com, they argued
for compulsory national service.
Debates over the draft or other forms
of compulsory service are nothing new.
President James Madison wanted a military
draft in 1812 to defend the young
republic from the British invasion. Congress
said no. The government did authorize
conscription during the Civil
War; draftees accounted for less than 10
percent of the Union Army.
In 1917, barely a month after the U.S.
entered World War I, Congress enacted
a law establishing the national Selective
Service. During that conflict, more than
half of the 4.7 million Americans in uniform
were conscripts.
In 1940, Congress once again authorized
the use of the Selective Service System.
About 10 million were called during
the course of World War II. At the
height of the war, draftees comprised
about half of the more than 16 million in
uniform.
After World War II, the nation had
its fullest debate over creating a requirement
for Universal Military Training.
Gen. George C. Marshall Jr. argued that
all young males should be required to
serve in the military for one year. President
Harry Truman agreed, but Congress
didn’t. Marshall tried again during
his tenure as secretary of defense. Again,
Congress said no.
Congress did reinstate the Selective
Service System in 1948 as concerns
about the Cold War heated up. Of the
approximately 5 million in uniform during
the Korean War, about 1.5 million
were draftees.
March 2016 ■ ARMY 17