From Draft NOtices, September-October 2005
—Jackie Dever
The United States military's campaign of public relations and cultural subversion is a beast of many personalities. One Navy advertisement cuts between footage of a placid suburban scene and footage of highly visual, highly testosterone fueled actions performed by members of the Navy during which a voiceover laments, "Somewhere some poor guy is buying a minivan." In another military ad, parents marvel at the firmer handshakes and more assertive eye contact of their homecoming sons. In a political climate whose main feature is an increasingly ambiguous and unpopular war, the military continues to employ a manifold strategy to captivate and capture new victims. These strategies depend on recognition as a cultural institution and brand name. The Army logo is splashed across billboards in movies, and the Army even sponsors NASCAR racers. Advertisements still rely on themes of patriotism and public service to encourage recruits, but messages of personal independence, increased confidence, and other self-focused gains set the current precedent.
Committee Opposed to Militarism and the Draft (COMD)
From Draft NOtices, July-August 2005
—Rick Jahnkow
It is encouraging to observe the contemporary anti-war movement's recent shift toward giving greater attention to military recruiting. This means that a growing number of individuals and organizations now understand that there is an organizing strategy that can be employed with much more effectiveness than the symbolic protest that has characterized most anti-war activism since September 11, 2001. People are finally looking deeper into the issues and understanding that no matter how frightening and uncontrollable the Bush administration may seem, it has a very reachable Achilles heel when it comes to needing human resources to wage its wars.
Nevertheless, there are reasons to be cautious in our optimism about the shift toward counter-recruitment work. In the organizing choices we now see, there is evidence that many activists still do not perceive the larger picture that surrounds the issue of recruitment. They are not understanding why the problem deserves much more than a tactical treatment, and as a result, counter-recruitment organizers are sometimes emphasizing very limited goals that look at the problem merely at the individual level, and not at the equally important community and societal levels. The phenomenon parallels the pattern we experienced during the anti-Vietnam War movement when, for many, the predominant tactical focus was on saving individuals from the draft. That approach benefited a limited number of potential draftees, but it also missed many others who were still drafted. More importantly, it did not affect the larger institutional issues that made Vietnam possible, even though the war was eventually halted. The consequence was 30 years of gradual remilitarization that has led us to where we are now.
- Rick Jahnkow
- Articles Archive
- Hits: 3008
Proposal Would Restore Privacy Rights Surrendered to the Military
From Draft NOtices, May-June 2005
—Rick Jahnkow
Representative Michael Honda, a Democratic member of Congress from San Jose, California, has introduced legislation that would require written permission from a parent before any secondary school that receives federal funds could release a student's name, address and phone number to military representatives.
The proposal, H.R. 551, was introduced on February 2, 2005, under the name Student Privacy Protection Act of 2005 and has been referred to the House Subcommittee on Education Reform. In addition to the sponsor (Honda), there were 31 co-sponsors as of May 5.
The bill would reverse a change in the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 implemented as a result of the legislation commonly known as the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001. The NCLB Act says that in order to receive federal education funds, secondary schools must provide student information to recruiters unless students or their parents had opted out. The law also states that secondary schools must "provide military recruiters the same access to secondary school students as is provided generally to post secondary educational institutions or to prospective employers of those students." The latter section was aimed at school districts in Portland, Oregon, San Francisco and a few other communities where recruiters were banned during the 1990s.
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:
