Committee Opposed to Militarism and the Draft (COMD)

: Jorge Mariscal; Articles Archive; 01 July 2005; Hits: 3369

Military Enlistment, or When a Contract Isn't Really a Contract

From Draft NOtices, July-August 2005

—Jorge Mariscal

It is an axiom among activists working in the area of counter-recruitment that the enlistment contract isn't worth the paper it's printed on. What this means in practical terms is that whatever a recruiter promises to deliver to a new recruit — specific jobs or assignment, length of service, benefits, or even citizenship — can be withdrawn or changed at any time.

Section C, Paragraph 9 of the enlistment contract states: "Laws and regulations that govern military personnel may change without notice to me. Such changes may affect my status, pay, allowances, benefits, and responsibilities as a member of the Armed Forces regardless of the provisions of this enlistment/reenlistment document."

Embedding the Military in Civilian Society

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.

Beyond Opt-out

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.