KIMBERLY RIVERA: PICKING ON HER IS NOT THE ANSWER

August 30, 2012 Kimberly Rivera, defected to Canada in February 2007 to avoid having to return to Iraq where she had been serving as a private in the US Army. She is the first female to have done so, although tens of thousands of men had done the same during the Vietnam War. They were welcomed there and were eventually granted amnesty by President Jimmy Carter. The 30-year-old Mrs Rivera's attempts, however, have failed and she has been ordered to leave the country with her family by September 20, 2012. This, despite the fact that she has been in Canada for over five and a half years and that two of her four children were born there. If she returns to the US, she will be face a court martial, dishonorable discharge and a prison sentence.

It is not difficult to understand why the Armed Forces of the United States, or any country for that matter, would not want its personnel to desert. Many people would be happy to be a soldier if they knew that they could just walk away the minute things started to get tough. That would jeopardise national security and the safety of those who stayed behind to honour their commitments. Demonising people like Kimberly Rivera, however, does not seem like a satisfactory solution, either, even though it may be an effective deterrent. After all, people change and so do situations. Besides, when two countries go to war, they cannot both be right; and if one is wrong, then every soldier has a 50% chance of committing an injustice. The Iraq War, with so many people opposed to it, is a case in point.

So what should be done? Here are a few suggestions:

• Contracts could be shorter, with steeply incremental pay and final bonuses

• There could be more flexibility with regards to assignments

• There could be enhanced payments and benefits for danger zones (such as diplomats get)

• Risks could be reduced by supplying military personnel with better protective equipment

• Protocols, like the Geneva Conventions, must be created that will make all killing and grievous bodily harm illegal: for soldiers as well as civilians

This last point is not naive idealism. Non-aggression agreements have existed from time immemorial. They need to be made more robust, more binding and more enduring. Indeed the first step should be the declaration of the absolute sacredness of life. Yes, we may always get the rouge fool who would wish to start a war and not play by the book, but international treaties should ensure that by so doing, these people are exposed. By taking a step back form civilisation they will be pitting the whole of civilisation against them. So they and their followers will be dealt with like any band of criminals are treated within a state: they will be apprehended as humanely as possible and punished accordingly as criminals.