April 22, 2005 | Page 4

"LIGHTEN UP on the recruiters," I was told recently, while tabling in support of suspended counter-recruitment activists at City College in New York. "They have a right to be there, too. Don't get me wrong, I support what you're doing--I'm against the war."

What does this really mean? What does it mean to be against the war and for the rights of recruiters?

As the counter-recruitment movement is taking off, a debate is brewing about the best way to "counter-recruit." On the one hand are those who have participated in driving military recruiters off campus with loud, angry protests. On the other are activists who see their role as simply countering the military's propaganda with information and career alternatives, but who concede the military's "right to recruit."

First, it should be said that these two views shouldn't be falsely counter-posed. All activists should do what they can to expose the recruiter's lies and help people stay out of the military.

At the same time, it must be said that the occupation itself is draining resources from those alternatives, to the tune of roughly $1 billion a month. So basing our whole approach on "career alternatives" ultimately leads to moralizing with people. At some point, we have to confront the challenge of actually ending the occupation of Iraq. That means not just advising people out of the military, but bringing them into the antiwar movement.

There's another, deeper problem with the "nicer" approach to counter-recruitment. When would progressives otherwise support the right to organize people for murder? Should the mafia have the right to recruit on campus? Should Charles Manson? Nobody would support their "right" to recruit because they clearly have no good purpose.

These silly examples illustrate the heart of the matter: It's a question of whether the occupation of Iraq, and by extension, the American military retains some grain of legitimacy in people's minds.

Like being against the war and for the occupation, being against the occupation and for the rights of recruiters is a contradiction. At least 100,000 Iraqis have been murdered in the last two years. If the occupation is wrong, how can it be right to recruit for it? We shouldn't lighten up on the recruiters. The military should lighten up on the Iraqis.
Brian Jones, New York City