Committee Opposed to Militarism and the Draft (COMD)

Articles Archive
Hits: 2649

From Draft NOtices, April-June 2013

– Seth Kershner
    

[Originally published by Bitch Magazine, December 2012, http://bitchmagazine.org/article/navy-steals. Reprinted with permission.]

Although women make up about half of the United States workforce, they represent just 24 percent of careers in STEM fields (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics). In order to correct this, major nonprofit groups have been organizing STEM enrichment camps for middle- and high-school girls, driven by the philosophy that more women will pursue STEM careers if their interest is piqued at an early age.

But recently, some girls-only STEM programs have gone beyond fostering interest in science and math among the next generation of women. Branches of the U.S. military – in particular, the Navy – have increasingly been using these programs to market the military to girls as young as 11 and 12.

Founded in 1974, Expanding Your Horizons (EYH) organizes dozens of STEM conferences for middle- and high-school girls each year. According to its website (http://www.expandingyourhorizons.org/), the EYH “recently had the opportunity to partner with the Navy and learn about careers where young women are underrepresented.” They give girls the following pitch: “You probably never gave much thought to having a career with the United States Navy. Many girls don’t. . . . We want to introduce you to several inspiring professional women who are currently active in the Navy and serve on aircraft carriers, who serve as Navy divers, or who serve in other interesting Navy careers.” Accompanying the text is a handy-dandy link to the Navy’s recruiting website.

Articles Archive
Hits: 2573

From Draft NOtices, April-June 2013

– Kathy Gilberd
    

In January, outgoing Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta announced the lifting of the Combat Exclusion Policy (CEP), which formally excluded women from ground combat service in the military. Panetta’s action, which reflected the unanimous recommendation of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, will give women potential access to over 230,000 positions previously closed to them. In his announcement Panetta also said, “We are moving forward with a plan to eliminate all unnecessary gender-based barriers to service.” The lifting of the exclusion policy follows a 2012 decision to open more than 14,000 additional positions to women, allowing them to serve in select positions in ground combat units at the brigade.

The change is not immediate, however. While the services must submit plans for integration by this May, the overall plan is set to phase in through 2016, and it may not be universal.  Although the formal exclusion is ended, much remains to be determined about this change in policy. DoD has pledged to use gender-neutral physical standards, rather than establishing separate standards for women, and Panetta firmly said, “I’m not talking about reducing the qualifications for the job.” But it is not clear whether physical requirements will be adapted to the differences of various Military Occupational Specialties or will be universal. Some observers believe that it will be difficult for many women to qualify under current standards, particularly those involving upper body strength.

While this action is in many ways historic, in reality women have already been serving in combat despite their formal exclusion. Recently, while women could not serve in combat units, they could be attached to those units; for example, women have served as medics attached to combat units in both Iraq and Afghanistan. The concept of “asymmetrical warfare,” with indistinct boundaries and fronts, has meant that women assigned to non-combat units frequently encounter combat as well. In Afghanistan, women routinely participate in convoys and armed patrols, where they often come under fire. More than 280,000 women have seen service in Iraq and Afghanistan, and about 150 have died in these wars. The government’s figures on injuries are often low, but according to them more than 800 have been wounded. In announcing the lifting of the CEP, Secretary Panetta acknowledged that women have already “become an integral part of our ability to perform our mission.”

Articles Archive
Hits: 2991

From Draft NOtices, January-March 2013

– Kathy Gilberd
    

Many observers say that the military medical system is broken. Military doctors and other medical professionals are too few to handle the multitude of physical and psychological illnesses and injuries engendered by two wars and other “engagements,” repeated deployments, and intense and rigorous training that injures many even before they are sent to combat zones. Soldiers are often denied access to medical care or pressured to avoid reporting injuries by military command units anxious to keep available troop numbers high. And recent changes to the medical discharge and retirement system, intended in part to speed processing of medical separations, have actually slowed the system down, with many ill or injured service members waiting well over a year to be retired or returned to duty.

The numbers of ill and injured troops from the Iraq and Afghanistan war are significantly higher than in past wars. Military officials are quick to attribute this to advanced life-saving techniques that leave more soldiers alive but injured. The intense pace of training, pressure to deploy soldiers despite medical problems that may worsen in combat zones, and repeated deployments (which similarly worsen illness and injuries) are also to blame. In some cases, soldiers with diagnoses preventing their deployment have found their physicians pressured to retract the diagnosis or replace it with one that permits deployment; in many other cases, military commands simply ignore doctors’ advice and regulations that would prevent deployment on medical grounds.

Subscribe to...

Click HERE

 

Ninth CIRCUIT COURT RULING: CONFRONTING MILITARISM BY USING EQUAL ACCESS TO HIGH SCHOOLS

When the military comes to your local high school, you have a legal right to give students an opposing view. This has been the position taken by federal district courts in Florida, Pennsylvania and Illinois and two federal appellate courts. The most broadly-worded decision came from a case that COMD took to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in the 1980s. Here is the background:

Find Out More | Download PDF