Give us a Million
Men and Women
and We’ll Change the World

Slideshow Image 1 Slideshow Image 2 Slideshow Image 3 Slideshow Image 4

Our core membership is all over 40 years old. We can all pass the physical fitness entrance exams for 17 year old recruits. That is an achievable lifetime goal and many people maintain this level of fitness until death. If we can do it anyone can do it. Many more could achieve this goal if they were challenged to do so and saw the need. That in itself is a good enough reason to attempt war reform.

It's an ambitious and even radical goal that someday no soldier under forty would ever be allowed inside a war zone, especially in a high risk position, but not as radical as some might think. The average age of the Navy SEAL team which took out Osama Bin Laden was 38. The Special Forces, the most elite soldiers in our military, all skew older, and could reach this goal faster than many outside the military currently understand. General Petraeus is currently 62 years old. Allegedly, he still runs five miles every morning. This is an exceptional, but by no means unattainable level of fitness amongst people who, however much they might dislike war and distrust the military, still live according to values which would make excellent soldiers.

Isn't such a goal worth reaching for by everyone (for the health benefits alone!), but also given the fate of too many of those whom we claim to most honor? Isn't there something backwards about the current setup? We ask children to defend adults? Shouldn't adults be protecting children? Just by reaching for this goal, don't we, the adults, make ourselves better, in every way, morally, physically and mentally? Don't we provide a better example and make our society more what it should be?

How is having soldiers vote on whether or not they believe in a mission any more untenable than any other form of democracy?

Americans are always the first to show what others say can’t be done, can be done – whether it’s civil rights, women’s rights, or modern democracy itself. Why should we deny this most basic right to soldiers, those citizens we claim to most support and honor?

The law would apply in wars of choice, not when America is under direct attack. It probably would have prevented Vietnam and Iraq, or at least forced more serious discussion about them, so our goals and planning were clearer.

On something like Afghanistan, where it’s a response to a direct attack on American soil, the President would still retain the right to order the military directly, but when the immediate threat was over, we’d still have the right to review that decision.