It was a surprising figure.

Of the 68,000-plus immigrants in the U.S. military, almost 12,000 or 17.2 percent were born in the English, French, Dutch and Spanish-speaking nations and territories of the Caribbean. What's particularly intriguing is that Jamaica, Trinidad and Tobago, Haiti and Guyana between them account for about 8,000 serving in the different branches of the armed forces—Army, Navy, Air Force and the Marine Corps.

When the Barbadians, Grenadians, Vincentians, Antiguans, Bahamians, St. Lucians and other West Indians are added to the pool, the number skyrockets to almost 10,000 Caribbean immigrants who have been trained to die or be killed for the United States.

So, whenever there is news about planned U.S. military deployment in some distant part of the world or if U.S. service personnel should suffer injuries or pay the ultimate price with their lives, the story is of direct interest to Caribbean nations and the Caribbean immigrant community in the United States.

The large presence of West Indians in the service tells an interesting story. For one thing it highlights the impact, which an all-volunteer force has on American society, meaning that it draws its strength from the working class and people with limited economic opportunities and not the rich and the powerful.

For another, there is the magnetic force of education and training which the U.S. military offers to newcomers. Because most Caribbean immigrants place their faith in education and training as the way forward many of them see the United States military as the perfect place where they can achieve their goals and ultimately move up the socio-economic ladder. The educational benefits to be derived from military service are not only appealing to West Indians but they also help pave the way for them to have a decent life later on.

That applies to African-Americans as well. But there is a troubling side to this story.

Many anti-immigrant voices in the United States are demanding a shut-off of the flow of foreign-born people from around the world without paying attention to their presence on the battlefront. The information about the foreign born in the military was provided by the Migration Policy Institute in Washington and it should help to silence some of the critics who portray immigrants as people who take but give very little to the country.

Of course, we know that's not true.

When the U.S. invaded Iraq, it cited weapons of mass destruction as the prime reason for removing Saddam Hussein from his presidential office. So far, the claim of the existence of biological and nuclear weapons programs has not been confirmed. Indeed it may turn out to have been a hyped up charge designed to mislead the American people.

What is clear from recent developments in Iraq is that the soldiers, the men and women from poor backgrounds, are the ones who are being injured or killed on the streets of Baghdad and other cities in the Persian Gulf. The sons and daughters of the influential conservative commentators who argued for the war with ethnocentric pronouncements and misinformation are not in any danger. As the summer vacation from college and university campuses continues, the children of privilege are in Europe or some exotic U.S. location leaving African-Americans, Hispanics, Asians and others to dodge bullets.

If the children of members of the U.S. House of Representatives and the Senate were exposed to deadly dangers would the U.S. military be preparing for an extended period of occupation? As a matter of fact, it is doubtful that our troops would be there Iraq today if the upper classes of American society had to bear the brunt of the ravages of war in Iraq where American soldiers are being killed and injured every day.

Congressman Charles Rangel, a man with a vision and a conscience when it comes to the poor, proposed a reinstatement of the draft. Admittedly, it was his way of expressing opposition to the war. His opponents, especially conservatives, thundered about the futility of his proposal while ignoring Rangel's essential point: the need for more equitable military recruitment policy. Those who ridiculed the New York Democrat for his proposal may soon have to come around to his point of view that a draft may be the best thing after all.

With almost 500,000 servicemen serving in 120 countries and the overwhelming military commitment in Iraq sapping the energy of the armed forces, it stands to reason why there is a growing debate about the importance of a bigger military.

"I think we need to make a decision very quickly, within weeks, about whether we need to increase the end-strength of the Army," was the way Jack Reed, a Democrat of Rhode Island put it.

Senator James M. Inhofe, a Republican of Oklahoma, also saw the need for more people in the military. "I was much more comfortable with the end-strength during the Cold War years than I am now," he declared. The reduction in the size of the armed services after the end of the Cold War has left America's military strength on the ground in a "near crisis," according to the Senator.

While neither Donald Rumsfeld, the Defense Secretary, nor Republican lawmakers on Capitol Hill used the word draft in their warnings, they talked about involuntary mobilization of the National Guard and the Reserve to meet the needs of America's global efforts.

Interestingly enough, the debate over military expansion has come at a time when the U.S. Justice Department is at the receiving end of strong criticism over its handling of immigrants in detention and allegations of abuse of the civil and human rights of immigrants.

It has also arisen as conservatives question why the country is allowing in so many foreigners. But they should remember that at least two Caribbean immigrants, one born in Jamaica, lost their lives in Iraq, dying for a country they called their "adopted home" and for a cause determined by President George Bush.

That's a sacrifice that many of the conservatives are unwilling to pay.