Friday, April 23, 2010

Pre-K needed to increase military recruits

Report:
Pre-K needed to increase military recruits

http://www.sunherald.com/2010/04/22/2122042/report-pre-k-needed-to-increase.html

By MARIA BURNHAM
Apr. 22, 2010

JACKSON, Miss. -- National security is threatened by soaring obesity
rates among young people, a lack of early education and by high
juvenile crime rates, a group of retired officers says in a report.

About 75 percent of Mississippians aged 17 to 24 are ineligible to
serve in the military mainly because of these three factors,
according to the report issued by Mission: Readiness, a nationwide
nonprofit group of retired military leaders. That number matches the
national percentage.

If that trend continues, in 20 years the military will be
significantly understaffed, said retired Army Brig. Gen. Augustus
Collins of Madison.

"We need to support long-term strategies to help our young people
maintain healthy lifestyles and keep them on the right side of the
law," Collins said at a news conference at the state Capitol.

The best way to do that in Mississippi is through increased early
education, in particular state funded pre-kindergarten programs for
3- and 4-year-olds, the report says.

Mississippi is one of only a handful of states that has no state pre-K program.

Based on previous studies, the report concludes that children who
participate in high-quality pre-K programs have a higher rate of
graduation and are less likely to be involved in crime. In
Mississippi, only 61 percent of students graduate from high school.

"We must invest in kids early to make certain they have every
opportunity available to them - including the military, if they so
choose," said Amy Dawson Taggart, national director of Washington
D.C.-based Mission: Readiness.

Though they offered no ideas on how to fund pre-K in Mississippi, the
retired officers called on the governor and legislators to take a
hard look at finding money for a program.

Legislators are currently bidding to hammer out a budget for the
coming fiscal year that spends about $500 million less than the
current year. There is no pre-K provision.

"Our national security in the year 2030 will be affected by the
investments in early education we make today," said retired Army
Brig. Gen. Roger Shields of Madison.

The group said its report seeks to raise awareness of the issues
affecting American's youth and the future impact it will have on the military.

While the focus in Mississippi was on early education, earlier this
week the group was in Washington pushing for the passage of a
wide-ranging nutrition bill aimed at making the nation's school
lunches healthier.

Weight problems are now the leading medical reason that recruits are
rejected, the report says. The average number of 18- to 24-year-olds
who were overweight or obese in Mississippi is above 50 percent.

The group wants Congress to rid schools of junk food and high-calorie
beverages, put more money into the school lunch program and develop
new strategies to encourage healthier habits among youth.

.

Protesters declare Zero Recruitment Day

Protesters declare 'Zero Recruitment Day,' stand up against wars and
occupations

http://www.fightbacknews.org/2010/4/23/protesters-declare-zero-recruitment-day-stand-against-wars-and-occupations

April 23, 2010

Coordinated protests were carried out at six military recruiting
centers across the Twin Cities and in Mankato, April 22.

Morning rush hour drivers into downtown Minneapolis were greeted by
five banners across the interstates reading, "Jobs not war" and
"Recruiters lie people die."

More than 50 people then gathered at Knollwood Mall, which houses
military recruiting offices, for a press conference to launch Zero
Recruitment Day. "We are here today to oppose the illegal occupations
of Iraq and Afghanistan by resisting military recruitment across the
Twin Cities. We initiated Zero Recruitment Day to expose the lies
that recruiters tell about serving and about the war," said Anti-War
Committee member Misty Rowan.

She continued, "A surge of combat forces has brought civilian
casualties to an all time high [in Afghanisan], just as footage has
surfaced of U.S. soldiers firing on unarmed Iraqi civilians - a
criminal act that the U.S. military is denying responsibility for.
Our government continues to spend billions of our tax dollars on war
abroad while at home we're faced with economic crisis... Military
recruiters then use these conditions to prey upon our youth,
disproportionately targeting those from low-income families and
people of color."

Members of the University of Minnesota Students for a Democratic
Society (SDS) spoke next. Tracy Molm said, "Don't enlist, resist!
It's time that we start exposing these lies because no longer can we
have students and youth come back broken because of the lies that
they have been sent to perpetrate in Iraq, Afghanistan and around the
world." She added, "It's really important that it's Earth Day. One of
the things that is most devastating to the earth is war and
occupations. Iraq and Afghanistan are devastated lands and today we
remember that this is part of why we resist war."

After the press conference, the Grandma's Peace Brigade continued
their presence outside the Knollwood recruitment offices. Before
leaving Knollwood Mall, members of Twin Cities Peace Campaign-Focus
on Iraq and Alliant Action called to report that they had
successfully shut down military recruitment at center in West St. Paul.

At the University of Minnesota over 50 people protested at the campus
ROTC building and then marched to the Karl Rove event on campus.
Protesters interrupted the war criminal and then rejoined the protest.

In Mankato the Mankato Area Activist Collective had a
counter-recruitment table at the mall outside of the recruitment
station in the mall. They then had a rally at Minnesota State University.

In the afternoon the Anti-War Committee held a picket at the National
Guard Center in Saint Paul where they promoted their counter
recruitment message to commuters. SERF (Semiotic Existentialists
Reinventing Fun) held a rally in Uptown in Minneapolis where
protesters hung a banner and stickers on the recruitment center. The
police arrested two protesters.

"This is our second Zero Recruitment Day. We are happy that so many
people joined together to challenge the lies of recruiters and to say
no to occupation in Afghanistan," said Anti-War Committee member Meredith Aby.

.

Thursday, April 22, 2010

All-volunteer US military still offers a pathway for young men

All-volunteer US military still offers a pathway for young men

http://www.physorg.com/news191067017.html

April 21, 2010

For many Americans coming out of high school, college, military
service and the workforce represent the primary avenues of
opportunity. With rising costs and stiff academic requirements,
college tends to draw students from a relatively advantaged
background. The all-volunteer military service also provides life
opportunities to the "less advantaged" through access to material and
educational benefits.

However, apart from patriotic values, it is unclear why young men
continue to choose the military, with its inherent risks of combat,
instead of college or the labor force. New research findings
published in Social Science Quarterly address this question. Data are
based on the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health, with
6,900 young males between the ages of 18 and 27, from high schools
across the U.S.

Lead author Glen H. Elder, Jr., a Faculty Fellow of the Carolina
Population Center and Research Professor of Sociology at The
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, speaks of the attraction
of the military for these young people, "The military offers enhanced
life chances for them ­ especially when they lack the resources for
college, both personal and socioeconomic, and view the military as a
more promising pathway than entry-level opportunities in the workforce."

These enlistees tend to cluster in the middle range on cognitive
ability, but rank below average on family income, and have not done
as well as other youth in academics. They report friends in the
military, but have minimal social support from family and school, and
come with a history of contact sports and involvement in fights. This
aggressive behavior is especially common among young men with poor
grades in secondary school.

The study does not address the long-term effects of military service,
but the evidence suggests that military service tends to minimize
social inequalities. Further research will tell whether the pathway
from relative disadvantage to military service defines a "positive
turning point in life chances" for this generation.

More information: "Pathways to the All-Volunteer Military." Glen H.
Elder, Jr., et.al. Social Science Quarterly; Published Online: April
6, 2010, DOI:10.1111/j.1540-6237.2010.00702.x
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6237.2010.00702.x

.

Wednesday, April 21, 2010

New documents reveal military recruiter misconduct

[2 articles]

National Guard recruiters forged re-enlistment papers: report

http://rawstory.com/rs/2010/0420/guard-recruiters-forged-reenlistment-papers/

By David Edwards and Daniel Tencer
Tuesday, April 20th, 2010

Washington State National Guard recruiters repeatedly forged
re-enlistment papers in a desperate attempt to hold on to soldiers in
the run-up to the Iraq war surge, a local news channel's
investigation has found.

In one case, a soldier found himself fighting against deployment to
Iraq after re-enlistment papers with his signature on it appeared --
even though he never signed any such papers, reports Chris Ingalls at
KING channel 5 news in Seattle. [See below.]

And in another case, a sergeant who had signed up for a one-year tour
of duty was shocked to discover his enlistment papers stated he had
signed up for two years.

Former soldier Michael Patrick sounded the alarm when he discovered
forged re-enlistment papers with his name on them.

"Sounds crazy," Michael Patrick told KING 5. "Sounds like something
from a movie."

The Washington National Guard soon determined that Sgt. Wendy
Schaefer, a recruiter, had paid soldiers and civilians out of her own
pocket to sign up recruits. She also promised the Guard would pay
$1,000 for each enlistment.

According to Guard documents, Schaefer "created an environment that
may have caused some of these 'paid assistants' to fabricate
documents in order to get money."

"The documents we received in the Patrick case do not explain how
anyone would possibly think they could get away with signing over a
soldier's life," Ingalls reported.

In another instance, Sgt. Keith Jackson says he was confronted by his
superiors with enlistment papers showing he signed up for a two-year
tour of duty, when he says he signed up for a one-year tour.

"I didn't sign it," he told KING 5. "That isn't my signature."

"While the Guard denies the forgery it granted Jackson an honorable
discharge soon after KING 5 first told his story," the channel reports.

In neither case has anyone in the Guard been disciplined. Sgt.
Schaefer told KING 5 in an email that she left the Guard with her
record intact. And the soldier who forged the signature in order to
collect money from Schaefer has never been held to account either.

This video is from KING, broadcast April 19, 2010. [See URL for video.]

--------

Investigators: New documents reveal military recruiter misconduct

http://www.king5.com/news/investigators/Investigators--New-Documents-Reveal-Military-Recruiter-Misconduct-91534899.html

by CHRIS INGALLS / KING 5 Investigators
April 19, 2010

New documents obtained by the KING 5 Investigators reveal stunning
details about recruiter misconduct in the Washington National Guard.

They expose the tactics of one "burned out" recruiter and raise
questions about what the Guard did when it caught her and another
soldier red-handed.

In 2006, the U.S. Military was straining to gear up for the "surge"
in Iraq. In November of that year re-enlistment papers were submitted
for Washington National Guard soldier Mike Patrick.

The problem was the signatures on the forms weren't his.

We showed Patrick 127 pages we just received under the Freedom of
Information Act, never before seen details about the investigation
launched when he complained to superiors.

"It sounds crazy. It sounds like something out of a movie," said
Patrick as he read through the paperwork for the first time.

Sgt. Wendy H. Schaefer is the signed recruiter on Patrick's
re-enlistment documents.

In a written statement to military investigators she said, "I became
very burned-out on recruiting." Later she wrote, "I was very
depressed and most of my work was done by others I paid to do it for me."

Schaefer admitted to paying soldiers and civilians from her own
pocket for each lead and promising Guard-funded bonuses of up to
$1,000 for each enlistment.

"It's hard to believe this would have gone on and somebody wouldn't
have caught this," said Patrick.

The Guard quickly recognized that signatures and initials on
Patrick's contract did not square. It determined that a soldier, who
served with Patrick, was paid a $1,000 bonus for Patrick's supposed
re-enlistment.

"I knew him. I didn't know him well," said Patrick.

Investigators determined that Schaefer "created an environment that
may have caused some of these 'paid assistants' to fabricate
documents in order to get money."

Schaefer would not open the door and talk to us when we reached her
at her Kent apartment.

She left the Guard, and in an e-mail told us, "They never took any
disciplinary action against me."

The soldier who was paid the bonus was also free to move along.
According to his Facebook page he now works for a military contractor
in Iraq. He wouldn't comment for this story. We're not naming him
because there is no record he was ever charged.

"It appears to me that nothing really was done," said Patrick. "It
sends a message of tolerance."

Mike Patrick did suffer with an unfavorable discharge rating that
held up his security clearance at a civilian job a couple years later.

The Guard apologized and upgraded him to a fully honorable discharge
a day after KING 5 told his story in 2008.

The documents we received in the Patrick case do not explain how
anyone would possibly think they could get away with signing over a
soldier's life. About the same time as Patrick's predicament, another
recruiter controversy was brewing, one that wouldn't be uncovered right away.

Former Sgt. Keith Jackson says he signed a one-year contract. But, at
the end of that year, the Guard claimed he'd signed a two-year
contract, which two recruiters swore they witnessed him sign.

"I didn't sign it," said Jackson. "This isn't my signature," he said,
looking at the document.

Just released documents show the recruiters, who had no connection to
Patrick's case, claimed Jackson was trying to "get out of (his
second) deployment" to Iraq, first by requesting a transfer and then
through his forgery claim.

Jackson's response: "I really don't know what to say to that. The
evidence says otherwise."

Perhaps Jackson's most powerful evidence is the re-enlistment
document itself, which says Jackson was sworn in at a recruiting
station in Issaquah on a date his travel records show he was overseas
for his full-time job as a military contractor.

"We couldn't have been in the same room together. I was in Iraq, he
was here," said Jackson.

In the document the recruiters certify "I have witnessed the
signature" on the enlistment form, Jackson's. But how could that be
if the signing happened over a cell phone as the recruiters claim in
their just-released statements?

While the Guard denies the forgery it granted Jackson an honorable
discharge soon after KING 5 first told his story.

The former Army sergeant's fight these days is in federal court.
Jackson sued the two recruiters in a case a judge dismissed on
procedural grounds. Last week, Jackson's attorney filed an appeal.

The Washington National Guard would not appear on camera for this
story. The Guard says military "careers ended" for soldiers in the
Patrick case, but it wouldn't specify if their discharges were
honorable or if they were punished.

The Guard says the Jackson case is another story, and that it stands
by the statements of their recruiters.

.

Military leaders target food in schools

Facing unfit recruits, military leaders target food in schools

http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/weightloss/2010-04-20-overweightrecruits20_ST_N.htm

4/20/10
By Nanci Hellmich

The obesity epidemic is threatening national security, so schools ­
which are on the front lines in battling the problem ­ need to boot
out junk food and serve healthier snacks and meals, a group of
retired military leaders is announcing today.

About three-quarters of today's young adults, ages 17 to 24, would be
unable to join the military if they wanted to because they are either
too heavy, didn't graduate from high school, have criminal records or
have other health problems, says Mission: Readiness, Military Leaders
for Kids, a non-profit group of 130 retired generals, admirals and
other senior military leaders. They are advocating for policies that
would help young Americans get ready to serve.

At least 9 million 'too fat to fight'

The leading medical reason why so many young people are unqualified
to serve: A fourth of adults in this age group ­ at least 9 million
young men and women ­ are too heavy, according to military entry
standards, the group says in its new report, Too Fat to Fight.

"When that many young adults can't fight because of their weight, it
affects our national preparedness and national security," says
retired rear admiral Jamie Barnett, a member of Mission: Readiness.
The group supports a strong reauthorization of the Child Nutrition
Act, which calls for providing free and reduced-priced school meals
for more kids and for serving more nutritious foods. About 31 million
children eat lunch at school every day, and 11 million eat breakfast.
Kids consume about 30% to 50% of their calories in school.

The military has been concerned about school nutrition for years and
was instrumental in persuading Congress to pass the original National
School Lunch Act in 1946, Barnett says.

The recession has temporarily reduced the challenges the nation's
military recruiters face in meeting their quotas for signing up
qualified Americans, the report says.

"We are hitting our recruitment needs, but we know that some of that
has to do with the economy, and those of us who have served are
concerned about the trends for the future," Barnett says. "Our
national security in 2030 is absolutely dependent on reversing the
alarming rates of childhood obesity."

A large pool of recruits, he says, is "good for the country overall.
It's good for our economy."

Just 'a safety pin'

About a third of children and teens are obese or overweight, the
government says. Those kids are at a greater risk of diabetes, high
blood pressure, high cholesterol and other health problems.

Recruiters work with young people to help them get into shape so they
are ready for boot camp, Barnett says. "But given the fact that so
many more kids are carrying so many more pounds, asking recruiters to
fix the problem is like asking for a safety pin after the seams have
burst," he says.

For more information, go to missionreadiness.org.

.

Students study at military base

Portland students study at military base, drawing complaints from parents

http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2010/04/portland_students_study_at_mil.html

By Kimberly Melton, The Oregonian
April 19, 2010

A science program takes hundreds of Portland elementary-school
students each year to study on a military base, drawing complaints
from parents that it violates a district policy against military
recruiting. Now, for the first time in at least eight years, some
members of the Portland School Board agree.

The board last month renewed Portland Public Schools' 17-year-old
annual contract with the Starbase program, funded with $320,000 from
the U.S. Defense Department. But three of seven members voted no.

The program brings classrooms of fourth- and fifth-graders each year
to spend five days at the Portland Air National Guard Base and the
nearby Oregon Army National Guard Jackson Armory to study science,
technology, aviation and space exploration. No official recruiting
takes place, and many kids don't even realize they're on a military base.

Opponents, however, argue that just being there constitutes recruiting.

"It's an educational program that is mandated to take place on a
military base," said Gene Wilcox, a parent who opposes the program.
"It's a message of tacit approval for the military and military
careers. You can't look at the education part of it without taking in
the military piece, too."

The Defense Department launched Starbase in 1992 in Michigan to
introduce at-risk youths to science careers. Department mission
statements and reports say long-term goals include "providing for a
highly educated and skilled American work force that can meet the
advanced technological requirements of the Department of Defense."

Starbase now operates with little controversy at 60 sites in 34
states -- including a second Oregon site in Klamath Falls. The
Defense Department sets the curriculum, though it's modified to meet
state standards.

Portland's program began in 1993 and includes a range of schools, not
just those serving mostly low-income or at-risk kids. This year,
students from 18 schools are participating, including 15 from the
Portland district and students from the David Douglas district and
from Damascus Christian School and Portland's Community Transitional School.

Marilyn Sholian, director of the local program, said she does no
marketing of Starbase. Schools come to her. Next year, schools must
pay transportation costs, yet 47 of 49 spots have been claimed.

"The reason this program is funded is because the U.S. doesn't have
enough engineers and people trained in physics, chemistry, aviation,"
Sholian said. "And we as a country can't always outsource. This
program plants a seed for those kinds of jobs, not the military."

At a session last week, students worked in groups to use a balloon to
move a straw along fishing line. Almost all the groups figured out
that if they blew up the balloon, held it closed and then taped it to
the straw and let go, the straw would fly across the line.

"I didn't know anything about this before," said 11-year-old Angel
Grass, a Transitional School fifth-grader. "I learned about the laws
Newton made, and we worked together to learn something new."

Roy Chambers, one of the three certified Portland Public Schools
staff who teach the course, said the program gives students hands-on
science learning they're not getting otherwise. Chambers added that
he talks only about science, not the military.

"Elementary school teachers would love to do this kind of thing in
their classrooms," he said. "But with a heavy emphasis on making sure
kids meet math and reading benchmarks, subjects like science and
social students really tend to suffer."

The classroom features no recruiting posters or military literature.
Students from Chief Joseph Elementary were allowed to accept the
program's careers brochure but only after a teacher and a Starbase
employee blacked out a Marine from among 14 people on the cover.

The back windows face a parking lot with military vehicles, and
students ask when they can see a tank or jet. But most said they
didn't know they were on a base or just shrugged when it was mentioned.

Visiting students spend one of the five days touring the base, which
includes the chance to climb aboard a light armored vehicle. About 60
of the 1,200 local participants are chosen each year to take a
Defense Department survey that asks whether they think the base was
fun and whether the military is a good place to work. Students leave
the program with more favorable views of the military, science and
themselves, according to the department's annual reports.

Parent protests have rumbled for at least a few years. In 2006, a
dozen parents pulled their kids from Winterhaven K-8 School's participation.

"It wasn't all that special," said Jessica Appelgate, a Winterhaven
parent who visited the program at the time. "They're learning science
concepts that they should get in the classroom. If this is an
opportunity that's not in the classroom, then shame on us as a school
district for not doing our job."

This school year, a group of parents and residents have argued that
the program violates the Portland district's 15-year-old ban on
military recruiting for elementary and middle-school students. (The
district restored recruiters' access to high school campuses in 2002
to avoid losing federal funding as part of the No Child Left Behind law.)

Before last month's school board meeting, about 30 opponents rallied
in the district's parking lot. At the meeting, parent Nancy Rawley,
one of three opponents allowed to testify, complained that families
were not given enough notice -- or an alternative curriculum.

Board member Ruth Adkins was among three board members to vote
against it. "I cannot support a program that requires students to
visit a military base for their education," she said. "While I do not
believe that PPS students are being directly recruited or groomed for
military service through this program ... I am morally opposed to our
tax dollars requiring students to learn on a military base."

On the other side, a Faubion Elementary School teacher presented
letters from students who said Starbase was the most fun learning
experience of the year. Board member Bobbie Regan said she had
visited the program in February and found nothing that crossed the line.

"I do not believe the military should have the ability to do
recruiting during school time," Regan said. "And I do not believe
they are doing so through Starbase. In fact, I would say Starbase
aligns much more closely with our beloved Outdoor School providing a
way to learn science in a fun and engaging way."

The board voted 4-3 to approve the contract but asked schools to
improve communication with families and offer an alternative for
those who opt out. The contract will come up for a vote again next spring.
--

Participating schools

This year:

Portland Public Schools: Duniway, Harrison Park, Alameda, Maplewood,
Grout, Vestal, Capitol Hill, Scott, Forest Park, Jason Lee, Woodmere,
Sabin, Chief Joseph and Marysville

David Douglas School District: Mill Park

Others: Damascus Christian School, Portland's Community Transitional School

Next year:

Portland Public Schools: Rosa Parks, Bridger, Laurelhurst, Faubion,
Irvington, Rigler, Beverly Cleary, Arleta, Woodstock, Capitol Hill,
Grout, Forest Park, Scott

North Clackamas School District: Concord, Cascade Heights

Canby School District: Lee and Eccles

Reynolds School District: Multisensory Learning Academy
--

Starbase

Participation: 60 sites in 34 states, with more than 480,000 students
participating since it began in 1991. Locally, 1,200 students attend
each year.

Annual budget: $17.7 million, or about $328 per student; $320,000 locally

Other programs: The Defense Department also pays for part of the
Portland district's Mandarin and Russian immersion programs.

.

Giving names of high school juniors to recruiters

District 5 board to consider giving high school juniors' names to
military recruiters

http://www.independentmail.com/news/2010/apr/19/district-5-board-consider-giving-high-school-junio/

By Liz Carey
Posted April 19, 2010

ANDERSON ­ Anderson School District 5's board of trustees will
discuss a public information issue at it board meeting Tuesday but
won't complete a budget.

The trustees will meet at 6:30 p.m. in the district office boardroom.

Like other districts across the county, District 5 is waiting for
more information from the legislature before moving forward with
concrete plans.

Instead, the district will discuss making a change in its policy to
provide the names of high school juniors to military recruiters.

"The policy change item was prompted by a request by military
recruiters for the name, address and telephone numbers of juniors,"
said Bill Baker, spokesman for the district. "Our board policy
currently states that we may only give that information for seniors.
However, we recently learned that federal law requires us to give it
for all secondary students upon request, provided we have given the
students the opportunity to opt out of having their information shared."

The board will also discuss sending notification home to give juniors
and their parents the option to not have their names released, an
option already available to seniors, he said.

But until more is known about what the legislature does, not much
else can be done about the budget.

While the legislature set the base student cost at $2,334 last year,
school finance directors started this year with a figure of $1,764
per student. Already, though, some administrators have projected
those costs will fall to $1,630 and may fall as low as $1,600.

Previously, District 5 Superintendent Betty Bagley said the district
would have to cut $10.3 million from the district's budget.

That was before the state announced that two accounting errors meant
the legislature had to trim $60 million from this year's budget and
$67 million from next year's budget.

Joey Nimmer, Anderson County School Board of Education administrator,
said the rest of the districts would also be waiting on the final
version of the state budget.

"Everyone's still waiting for the state to finalize what they're
going to pass," Nimmer said. "We expect the districts will be putting
together their budget the latter part of May, and we will follow up
with the county budget workshops in early June."

The county board is also waiting until new member Shawn McGee gets up
to speed before proceeding any further on discussion of consolidating
the school districts.

McGee was appointed to fill Mike Gray's seat after Gray died in November.

"Tonight will be his first meeting," Nimmer said. "We're waiting for
him to get up to speed and then we will proceed from there."

In 2009, the board accepted a report from the Strom Thurmond
Institute that made several recommendations to provide equitable
educational opportunities for all Anderson County students. Among
those recommendations was to consolidate the school districts from
five to three districts, two or one.

Since then, the county board has presented the study to various
community groups but made no move to accept any of the study's recommendations.

.

Tuesday, April 20, 2010

Guard recruiter takes low-key approach

Guard recruiter takes low-key approach

http://www.siouxcityjournal.com/news/local/article_0c6dd6d2-61fe-5090-8f4b-09f72c8c6894.html

By Nick Hytrek
nhytrek@siouxcityjournal.com
April 16, 2010

WAYNE, Neb. -- Perhaps you remember what seemed to be the
hard-selling ways of military recruiters past.

If you made eye contact with them at a high school career or college
fair, they would pounce, trying to convince you that their particular
branch of the service was perfect for you. They never seemed to take
no for an answer, and you felt guilty when that's what you told them.

Maybe that type of recruiting effort is a thing of the past. Even if
it's not, that's just not the way Sgt. 1st Class Dale Alexander, a
Nebraska Army National Guard recruiting and retention NCO, prefers to
go about talking with teenagers.

"I'll never try to convince them to do something they don't want to
do. Serving in the military isn't for everybody," Alexander said.
"What I try to avoid is putting someone in the military, then one
month later they decide they don't want to be there."

Whatever Alexander tells them works. Last year, Alexander, who's
based in Wayne, was the top recruiter in the state, signing up more
kids than recruiters in more populous areas like Omaha and Lincoln.
Alexander signed up 24 recruits from his territory, which includes 19
northeast Nebraska high schools and Wayne State College.

He did it without pressuring kids. Alexander said he tries to get to
know each teenager he talks to and is honest with them, skills he
developed during his 16 years as a probation officer before becoming
a recruiter in 2007.

He emphasizes that it's a military commitment, that the Guard doesn't
exist just to pay for kids' college tuition. Potential recruits know
there's a good chance they could be deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan.
Alexander has been deployed to Iraq himself.

"I give them all the details -- the good, the bad, what the
commitment is, what we expect from them and what they can expect from
us," he said.

And even if the recruit is 18 or older and doesn't need parental
permission to join, Alexander said he makes a point of meeting the
parents so he can answer any questions, or calm any fears, they may have.

Alexander understands that family connection. His father and sister
both served in the Guard. It was one of the main reasons he joined,
and he's glad he did.

"It was a life-changing experience for me for the better, and I want
to try to share that with those who want to serve their country and
get a college degree."

An Emerson, Neb., native, Alexander joined the Guard as a high school
senior in 1987. He obtained bachelor's and master's degrees without
having to pay a dime. As it was then, that tuition assistance is
still one of the main reasons why most teenagers look into joining,
Alexander said. But it's just one avenue he uses to get a recruit interested.

"I show them our programs and how that will help them achieve their
goals," he said.

He does that through one-on-one meetings or presentations to whole
classrooms. All the while, he keeps it relaxed, trying to become
friends rather than putting on an aggressive hard sell.

As the old saying goes, you can catch more flies with honey than with
vinegar. Sitting in Alexander's office, you can almost hear the bees buzzing.

.

Release of Student Information to Military Recruiters

Release of Student Information to Military Recruiters

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=18707

Law will protect student privacy in public schools and parental
decision-making rights

by Patrick Elder
April 19, 2010

Annapolis, MD - Maryland Governor Martin O'Malley signed a measure
into law today that prohibits the automatic release of student
information to military recruiters gathered as a result of the
administration of a military test in the state's high schools. A
cross section of Maryland groups, including the Maryland Coalition to
Protect Student Privacy, the Maryland NAACP, MD-PTA, the ACLU-MD,
Progressive Maryland, and Peace Action Montgomery lobbied for the
passage of the bill.

The law (HB 176/SB778) requires that each public school that
administers the Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery (ASVAB)
shall choose "Option 8" as the reporting option for military
recruiter contact to prohibit the general release of any student
information to military recruiters. The law will ensure that the
decision to share test results and accompanying private information
with military recruiters rests solely in the hands of students and
their parents. Maryland is the first state to pass such a law.

"This law closes a loophole in the 'opt-out' legislation passed
overwhelmingly by the Maryland General Assembly in 2008, which
allowed parents to opt out of releasing a student's name, address,
and phone number to military recruiters but did not cover the release
of information gathered as a result of ASVAB testing," explained Del.
Sheila Hixson, (D-20), lead sponsor of the legislation and Chair of
the House Ways and Means Committee.

Sen. Jamie Raskin, (D-20), a constitutional law professor at American
University, was the Senate's lead sponsor. Raskin hailed the bill's
passage as a "big victory" that vindicates the "students' right to
privacy of personal information and the family's right to decision making."

"I was pleased to work with so many civil liberties, civil rights,
parent/teacher, and peace groups in this important effort," Raskin added.

In 2007, the last year for which such data are available, 91% of the
6,816 students in 156 public schools across Maryland who took the
ASVAB had their results forwarded to Military Recruiting Services by
the U.S. Military Entrance Processing Command (which administers the
test) because the schools failed to select Option 8. Students taking
the ASVAB without having Option 8 selected relinquish social security
numbers, ethnicity, detailed career plans, demographic information,
and three hours of test results to recruiters, often without parental
knowledge or consent. Several schools schedule ASVAB testing for
entire classes.

Under the new law, individuals who wish to share their ASVAB results
with recruiters may do so themselves (this is an on-the-spot
transaction when visiting a recruitment office). This policy is
currently working satisfactorily in several Maryland school systems.

.

Md. law limits military recruitment of high school students

Md. law limits military recruitment of high school students

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/14/AR2010041404601.html

By Michael Birnbaum
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, April 15, 2010

Maryland schools will no longer forward scores from a popular
vocational test to military recruiters under new legislation that
requires high school students to send the information themselves.

The test, the Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery, or ASVAB,
is administered by the military in schools across the country as a
public service and is used by career counselors as a tool to guide
students toward an array of jobs, not just those in the armed services.

Unless the school or a student checks an opt-out box, the scores are
released to military recruiters, who can get in touch with
prospective recruits. The new law, signed by Gov. Martin O'Malley
this week, requires Maryland schools to check the opt-out box.

"This was a victory for the privacy of student information and the
right of families to engage in decision-making," said Sen. Jamie B.
Raskin (D-Montgomery), who championed the bill in the Senate, where
it passed, 25 to 22, this month. The bill passed in the House, 102 to 37.

Many school systems, including those in Montgomery and Prince
George's counties, haven't forwarded the scores for several years.
But the new law will apply that policy statewide.

The change has some concerned.

The scores let recruiters "enter a meaningful dialogue as to
potential military career opportunities," Army Lt. Col. Christopher
J. Beveridge, commanding officer of the Baltimore Military Entrance
and Processing Station, wrote in a letter to the legislature last
week. "Much of the rhetoric behind the bill is bent on disrupting any
efforts to build, support, or sustain the military."

State Superintendent of Schools Nancy S. Grasmick also cautioned last
week that the bill "could interfere with an established process that
assists many Maryland public school students . . . in the evaluation
of appropriate career choices and in making academic decisions."

But supporters of the measure, including some veterans, dismissed the
concerns.

"Why not take the extra step to help the family make an important
decision about their lives?" asked Sen. Douglas J.J. Peters (D-Prince
George's), chairman of the Senate Veterans Caucus and a veteran of
the Persian Gulf War. "It gives them something to think about rather
than just doing something ready, fire, aim."

.

Admiral discusses veterans' needs

Pull quote:

Adm. Mullen said that the Defense Department and the Department of
Veterans Affairs were committed to improving their services, but said
that their efforts

would never be sufficient to meet veterans' needs.

--------

Adm. Mullen stops at Pitt, discusses veterans' needs

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/10110/1051848-53.stm

Tuesday, April 20, 2010
By James O'Toole

The war in Iraq may end, the administration may meet its deadline for
an end to the American deployment in Afghanistan, but the needs of
many of the veterans of those conflicts will go on for decades.

That was part of the message Adm. Mike Mullen brought to the
University of Pittsburgh on Monday. The chairman of the Joint Chiefs
of Staff spent the day in Pittsburgh as part of a multi-city
listening tour, highlighting the challenges and search for solutions
to the needs of returning veterans.

Adm. Mullen contrasted the reception current veterans have
encountered with the estrangement between the military and much of
society after his Vietnam-era graduation from the U.S. Naval Academy.
But he suggested that the "sea of goodwill out there," was not enough
to effectively deal with the physical and mental challenges
encountered by many returning warriors.

"When you get injured, that's the day the fight begins," the admiral
said of the bureaucratic and societal challenges of many of his
troops face. "It's you against a big system."

Adm. Mullen said that the Defense Department and the Department of
Veterans Affairs were committed to improving their services, but said
that their efforts would never be sufficient to meet veterans' needs.
Teamwork with community-based organizations across the country, he
said, would continue to be essential, and one of his goals in touring
the country was to better understand and communicate with such
community organizations.

"The Department of Defense can't do it alone; the Department of
Veterans Affairs can't do it alone," he said.

The chairman said part of the reason he came to Pittsburgh was
because of the reputation its scientific and medical community had
gained in research dealing with some of the signature injuries of the
wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, including traumatic brain injuries and
burns. Part of his tour took him to the McGowan Institute for
Regenerative Medicine, collaboration between Pitt and UPMC.

"An incredible part of this tour this morning was to look at skin
grafting breakthrough research," he said.

He also described a visit to the entertainment technology labs at
Carnegie Mellon University, where he saw a demonstration of how video
game technology could be harnessed for physical rehabilitation.

The nation's ranking uniformed officer suggested that the
multi-disciplinary approach was a metaphor for the broader
collaboration society and the military must muster to address the
needs of veterans.

"One of the things I've learned is that we're living in a world that
grew up in various stovepipes. ... We've got to be integrated from a
systems engineering standpoint and learning about each other in that
integration, we need to be much more transparent," he said during and
panel discussion at Soldiers & Sailors Memorial Hall & Museum. "We
need to be much more collaborative than we've been in the past."

In a subsequent news conference, Adm. Mullen stressed that among his
priorities for dealing with returning veterans was to better address
the challenge of homelessness among veterans and to institute a more
effective system of mental health assessment.
--

Politics Editor James O'Toole: jotoole@post-gazette.com or 412-263-1562.

.

Sunday, April 18, 2010

ROTC May Return to Stanford

ROTC May Return to Stanford

http://liveshots.blogs.foxnews.com/2010/04/05/rotc-may-return-to-stanford/?test=latestnews

April 5, 2010
by: Claudia Cowan

Being a student at an elite university like Stanford is challenging
enough. But imagine the difficulty for undergrads who've chosen to
serve our country after they graduate.

Because Stanford doesn't offer Reserve Officers' Training Corps,
ROTC, they must drive to other Bay Area schools to participate, such
as San Jose State and the University of California at Berkeley. For
some cadets, that means a half hour commute, and missing out on
coveted spots in officer training courses.

As one cadet put it, "we're doing what soldiers always do--
improvise, adjust and overcome."

For nearly 40 years, ROTC has not been welcome at The Farm. Stanford
kicked ROTC off-campus in 1973 following anti-war protests that
included the torching of a Navy ROTC building. Students and faculty
didn't like the idea of teaching the art of war on campus, and had
issues with the academic standards, as well.

But now there's a growing effort to bring the 200-year old military
leadership training program back, spearheaded by former Defense
Secretary William Perry, and Pultizer Prize winning historian David
Kennedy-- both Stanford professors.

In their view, reinstating ROTC goes to the heart of Stanford's
mission statement as an institution of higher education. Kennedy
argues the nation's universities should expose students to every
reasonable option for their future.

"Institutions like Stanford, that enjoy tax-exempt status, and are
the objects of all kinds of philanthropy, have an obligation to train
leaders for institutions of importance in the Armed Forces. There's
something wrong with the picture where a privileged, I daresay
elitist, institution like this one doesn't make room for training
people for that walk of life," Kennedy said.

But opposition remains. Sociology Professor Cecilia Ridgeway, who
voted against reviewing this policy, and refused to speak to Fox
News, says universities should not encourage "military approaches" to
problem solving.

In nearby Palo Alto, anti-war activist Paul George says Stanford is
no place for such military training.

"We appreciate what the military does for us," says George. "But this
attitude of glorifying war, and just accepting war, is exacerbated by
programs like the ROTC that come into an academic community as if
it's a natural part of it. And I have a problem with that."

Many cadets, like Akhil Iyer, a junior at Stanford and future Marine,
ask why Stanford shouldn't welcome ROTC students in this global
security landscape.

"We're going to have people going into policy, we may have a
President from one of my classes. For them to get some sort of
exposure to ROTC is important, because they're going to influence the
policies of the military, and of the Armed Forces."

Any change in policy won't happen in time to help out Akhil and his
dozen or so fellow cadets. The return of ROTC to Stanford is also
contingent on the repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," and there's no
telling when that may happen. But this school is not alone in
rethinking Vietnam-era anti-ROTC policies. Harvard, Columbia and
other universities are also considering reinstating the program.

.

Saturday, April 17, 2010

Wars' toll on military kids

Wars' toll on military kids

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/checkup/2010/04/wars_toll_on_kids.html?wprss=checkup

By Rob Stein
April 14, 2010

Children of troops deployed in Afghanistan or Iraq are more likely
than other kids to suffer from anxiety when a parent is away and even
after the parent returns home, according to new research.

Patricia Lester of UCLA and her colleagues studied 171 families from
the Army's Fort Lewis and the Marines' Camp Pendleton in which the
mother or the father was on active duty in Iraq or Afghanistan. About
one-third of the children in these families had increased levels of
anxiety, the researchers report in the Journal of the American
Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry. But more surprisingly,
the anxiety tended to persist even after the parent returned home,
the researchers found.

The researchers also found an interesting gender difference in how
the anxiety manifested itself: Girls were more likely to act out and
exhibit disruptive behavior when the parent was deployed. The
problems with boys tended to show up after the deployed parent returned home.

The researchers say the findings are important because more military
personnel tend to have families than in the past. They hope the
findings will help officials design better programs to help parents
and their children cope with the emotional effects of military service.

.

"Anybody's Son Will Do"

"Anybody's Son Will Do"

http://www.opednews.com/articles/Anybody-s-Son-Will-Do-by-Bill-Willers-100412-89.html

April 17, 2010
By Bill Willers

In 1983, the National Film Board of Canada produced a 57-minute film,
"Anybody's Son Will Do". Arguably the best anti-war film ever made,
and tailored for public television, it scared the hell out of the
U.S. military machine, which has done its best to "disappear" it. For
years it has been nearly impossible to find a copy, but some kind
soul has posted it on YouTube where it can be seen in six
segments. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DShDaJXK5qo

The film shows the process by which young men become psychologically
engineered to kill or die on command. While the model used is the
U.S. Marine Corps, it's made clear that the modern techniques for
creating soldiers are refined, dehumanizing and universal.

Military forces will take boys as young as the law allows, as witness
African militias that, unrestrained by regulation, recruit children
as young as ten. People into their twenties, having begun to think
for themselves to too great a degree, tend not to be sufficiently
malleable. In the U.S., recruitment below age 17 is not legal.
However, as war has become ever more computerized, need is growing
for tech-savvy recruits who can kill coolly and indiscriminately from
great distances, as if playing video games. The military has become
very good at video games.

What this leads to in the real world is exemplified by this recently
publicized footage of the slaughter by U.S. military of 12 civilians.
The video has been a much-needed awakening for many. But as
distressing as the carnage itself is the callousness with which the
people go about their work: "Alright, hahaha, I hit 'em... Nice, good
shooting.... Thanks"
http://www.collateralmurder.com/

As Glenn Greenwald has correctly declared, the tragedy of this is
that it's not aberration but commonplace. What is unusual is that
this particular episode was made public.
http://seminal.firedoglake.com/diary/39266

What is also tragic is that it represents precisely what the U.S.
military wants to make of recruits who will be reeducated --
brainwashed -- to see it as manly, patriotic, heroic. And what
youngster with percolating hormones, negligible life experience and
no basis for critical thought doesn't want to be like that?

Go to http://www.americasarmy.com/ and click on "America's Army
Graphic Novel" to see what age group and level of education the
Pentagon is aiming for. The "novels" are 28-page comics with text
bubbles over GI Joe action figures and brightly colored noise
representations: "KRR-AKK", "BLAM", "RATATATAT, CHAKA CHACKA CHAK...".

And now with their arcades open to the public, the military has its
foot in the door of the minds of younger children who, if asked,
would likely insist they can tell the difference between video games
and reality.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/05/world/americas/05iht-army.1.19086159.html

As for "Anyone's Son Will Do", DVDs of it should be in every junior
high and high school in the country. Parent-teacher associations
should have screenings. With any luck, it might get us headed toward
a day when a common sight will be bumper stickers "Support Our Peace Makers".

.

Military's biggest battle looms in nation's classrooms

Military's biggest battle looms in nation's classrooms

http://www.pennlive.com/editorials/index.ssf/2010/04/militarys_biggest_battle_looms.html

By Patriot-News Op-Ed
April 16, 2010

Since the close of the Vietnam War ­ when we abolished the draft and
established the current all-volunteer armed forces ­ the military has
depended on the American educational system to equip young men and
women who choose military service to be qualified to enlist.

You might be alarmed to learn that according to the Department of
Defense, 75 percent of Americans ages 17 to 24 are not now eligible
for military service because they have criminal records or do not
meet minimum educational or medical and physical standards.

What is even more disturbing is that this figure has been quietly and
steadily growing worse during the last 30 years.

In the years immediately following the war in Vietnam, the Army was
successful in attracting a sufficient number of volunteers to
maintain its end strength.

In 1979, however, the Army missed its recruiting goal by more than
17,000 enlistees ­ the equivalent of an entire armored division.

As part of the response to this crisis, I was ordered to report to
Fort Sheridan, Ill., to serve on a team of data analysts in support
of the recruiting command's task to fix this shortfall. My team
discovered that at that time, the Army needed to recruit 120,000 men
and women every year to maintain an end-strength of 750,000 soldiers.

By comparison, there were about 1.5 million young American men
graduating from high school annually.

Based on this ratio, the Army only had to convince fewer than 8
percent of these male high school graduates to enlist.

So what was the problem?

Failure to graduate from high school was just one disqualifier.
Educational achievement, serious criminal convictions and physical
fitness problems, which include obesity and high blood pressure,
alcohol and drug abuse, as well as inadequate preparation in high
school allowing an individual to graduate without basic skills in
reading, writing or math needed for military service, were factors
that raised the recruiting challenge to 33 percent.

Recruiters therefore had to enlist one out of every three male high
school graduates who met all of the service requirements. In the end,
when we finished analyzing the data in the early 1980s, we were
disheartened to discover that 50 percent of all young Americans were
ineligible to serve. Unfortunately, in the last 30 years, Americans
have become more overweight and less fit.

Likewise, far too few graduate high school and too many get into
trouble with the law.

The fact that in 2010, 75 percent of Americans ages 17 to 24 are not
eligible for military service reveals a dangerous trend that is
unsustainable for America's security. Clearly, we must help young
people become healthy, educated and well-adjusted adults to overcome
this obstacle for national defense.

That is why more than 100 retired generals, admirals and other senior
military leaders have formed the group known as Mission: Readiness.
Our goal is to help our nation's young people avoid these
disqualifiers at the point of maximum impact ­ early childhood education.

Early childhood education can teach our at-risk children what proper
nutrition is as well as show them the value of regular exercise and
rigorous physical activity. It can teach appropriate peer
socialization habits to prevent bullying and further aggressive and
even criminal behavior.

But primarily it can give children the proper start for a lifetime
equipped to take advantage of any career opportunity, which all old
soldiers like me hope will include military service in defense of
this great nation.

Pennsylvania's state legislators have an opportunity to continue our
commitment to early education for the commonwealth's most at-risk
children in next year's state budget.

I encourage them to find room in this tight budget to maintain state
funding for quality early learning programs such as pre-K Counts,
Head Start and the other components of Pennsylvania's quality early
learning continuum.

Believe it or not, our national security in the year 2030 is heavily
dependent on what is going on in today's pre-kindergarten classrooms.
--

Retired Army Lt. General Dennis L. Benchoff is an adjunct professor
of mathematics at Harrisburg Area Community College, Lancaster Campus.

.

Friday, April 16, 2010

Troops are (Worshipped) Killers

[2 articles]

Troops are (Worshipped) Killers

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-big-questions/201004/troops-are-worshipped-killers

War is killing, plain and simple.

April 3, 2010
by Nathan Heflick

For the US military so loved the world, that they killed millions
throughout history, so that whoever shall be born into the US shall
worship them, and have everlasting freedom!

Oh wait, that isn't how the verse goes? My fault. You can excuse me
for making this mistake I hope. After all, my whole life I have been
surrounded by people who aren't so good at making the distinction
between the US military and God. .

Actually, let's step away from religion entirely. Let's envision war
as best we can. Let's think of the immense pain and suffering that it
causes both sides. Think of mothers losing their children; think of
wives losing their husbands. Think of a new Mom being terrified while
bombs blow up all around the most precious thing in her life - her
new child. Think of a father holding his 12 year old son after he
just got shot in the chest by a stray bullet. Don't worry father,
your son died a noble death. FREEEEEEEEEDOM!

While that soaks in, let's ponder how we treat the people in those
wars. They are heroes, if they are on our side. How dare anyone say
anything negative about them! I mean, their behavior, stripped of
all context, would be repulsive even for the most vile serial killer.
They kill and inflict hardcore suffering onto others.

That is what war is good for: suffering. And, dare I say it, it is
about time we stop worshipping the people who are in war, because
that only increases the liklelihood of future war. And that does none
of us any good.

Isn't it more supportive of soldiers to oppose war, or at least to
try and get them to safety as soon as possible? But no, we choose the
worship option.

Thank the military for God. Oh wait, I have that backwards again.

With all these innocent people being destroyed and lives being
ruined, excuse me for not lining up at the altar to worship those who
are the vessels of such atrocities.

--------

Troops are (worshipped) killers: Further thoughts

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-big-questions/201004/troops-are-worshipped-killers-further-thoughts

Why we shouldn't idolize troops: Comments on feeback

April 5, 2010
by Nathan Heflick

I wrote the other day that we should not, in my view, worship or
idolize members of the military. After reading /hearing people's
comments, I wanted to address this issue further.

The first thing I want to be clear on is that I am not condoning
hatred or hostility towards troops (as I wrote several times, and I
even alluded to being anti war, as I am, as pro-soldier). I fear
people just read the title and jumped to conclusions about that. I
never, ever said that.

Truth be told, I think villifying soldiers is incredibly repulsive in
every way. What they see and experience during war no one should have
to be a part of. War is totally, and completely horrific. There is
nothing glamorous about it, or at least there shouldn't be. So yes,
my heart goes out to any person serving in a war (on either side) or
living in a warzone.

I am not anti-American. I would describe myself more as "pro-people."
I live in a bizarro mind (apparently) where all life is equal, on any
side of any conflict. That is, perhaps, why I am so opposed to war.
The horrors literally crush my spirit when i think about them. If
that makes me a panzy, or whatever else, then so be it. But it
doesn't make me a soldier hating jerk.

With all that said, I think I had some valid points, both from a
moral viewpoint (opinion) and from a psychological (science)
perspective. It is almost a certainty that idolizing trooops
increases support for war. Psychologically, people are highly
impacted by social norms/consensus/the media. If more people think
"soldiers are to be praised" then many other people will think that,
just sort of by association.

Further, the issue of why a certain behavior (killing) is treated as
hero-work in one instance, and the most vile act one can commit in
another is incredibly interesting psychologically, as one commenter
pointed out. In fact, it is a recurring theme of my blog (as a social
psychologist) that the social context/cultural context plays a huge
role in morality, decision making, attitudes, etc etc.

Ok, so I guess that is all I can think of. I have to go do some work
now so that I can get hired when I am done with my PhD!

.

Thursday, April 15, 2010

CIA is Back on American University Campuses

A CounterPunch Special Investigation

How the CIA is Welcoming Itself Back Onto American University Campuses

http://counterpunch.com/price04092010.html

Silent Coup

By DAVID PRICE
April 9 - 11, 2010

Throughout the 1970s, '80s and '90s, independent grassroots movements
to keep the Central Intelligence Agency off American university
campuses were broadly supported by students, professors and community
members. The ethos of this movement was captured in Ami Chen Mills'
1990 book, C.I.A. Off Campus. Mills' book gave voice to the multiple
reasons why so many academics opposed the presence of the CIA on
university campuses: reasons that ranged from the recognition of
secrecy's antithetical relationship to academic freedom, to political
objections to the CIA's use of torture and assassination, to efforts
on campuses to recruit professors and students, and the CIA's
longstanding role in undermining democratic movements around the world.

For those who lived through the dramatic revelations of the
congressional inquiries in the 1970s, documenting the CIA's routine
involvement in global and domestic atrocities, it made sense to
construct institutional firewalls between an agency so deeply linked
with these actions and educational institutions dedicated to at least
the promise of free inquiry and truth. But the last dozen years have
seen retirements and deaths among academics who had lived through
this history and had been vigilant about keeping the CIA off campus;
furthermore, with the attacks of 9/11 came new campaigns to bring the
CIA back onto American campuses.

Henry Giroux's 2007 book, The University in Chains: Confronting the
Military-Industrial Academic Complex, details how two decades of
shifts in university funding brought increased intrusions by
corporate and military forces onto university. After 9/11, the
intelligence agencies pushed campuses to see the CIA and campus
secrecy in a new light, and, as traditional funding sources for
social science research declined, the intelligence community gained
footholds on campuses.

Post-9/11 scholarship programs like the Pat Roberts Intelligence
Scholars Program (PRISP) and the Intelligence Community Scholarship
Programs today sneak unidentified students with undisclosed links to
intelligence agencies into university classrooms (both were first
exposed by this author here in CounterPunch in 2005). A new
generation of so-called flagship programs have quietly taken root on
campuses, and, with each new flagship, our universities are
transformed into vessels of the mi­tarized state, as academics learn
to sub­limate unease.

The programs most significantly linking the CIA with university
campuses are the "Intelligence Community Centers of Academic
Excellence" (ICCAE, pro­nounced "Icky") and the "Intelligence Advance
Research Projects Activity". Both programs use universities to train
intelligence personnel by piggybacking onto existing educational
programs. Campuses that agree to see these outsourced programs as
nonthreatening to their open educational and research missions are
rewarded with funds and useful contacts with the intelligence
agencies and other less tangible benefits.

Even amid the militarization prevailing in America today, the silence
surrounding this quiet installation and spread of programs like ICCAE
is extraordinary. In the last four years, ICCAE has gone further in
bringing government intelligence organizations openly to American
university campuses than any previous intelligence initiative since
World War Two. Yet, the program spreads with little public notice,
media coverage, or coordinated multi-campus resistance.

When the New Infiltration Began

In 2004, a $250,000 grant was awarded to Trinity Washington
University by the Intelligence Community for the establishment of a
pilot "Intelligence Community Center of Academic Excellence" program.
Trinity was, in many ways, an ideal campus for a pilot program. For a
vulnerable, tuition-driven, struggling financial institution in the
D.C. area, the promise of desperately needed funds and a regionally
assured potential student base, linked with or seeking connections to
the D.C. intel­ligence world, made the program financially attractive.

In 2005, the first ICCAE centers were installed at ten campuses:
California State University San Bernardino, Clark Atlanta University,
Florida International University, Norfolk State University, Tennessee
State University, Trinity Washington University, University of Texas
El Paso, University of Texas-Pan American, University of Washington,
and Wayne State University. Between 2008-2010, a second wave of
expansion brought ICCAE programs to another twelve campuses: Carnegie
Mellon, Clemson, North Carolina A&T State, University of North
Carolina-Wilmington, Florida A&M, Miles College, University of
Maryland, College Park, University of Nebraska, University of New
Mexico, Pennsylvania State University, and Virginia Polytechnic Institute.

But the CIA and FBI aren't the only agencies from the Intelligence
Community that ICCAE brings to American university campuses. ICCAE
also quietly imports a smorgasbord of fifteen agencies ­ including
the National Security Agency, Defense Intelligence Agency, and
Homeland Security.

ICCAE's stated goals are to develop a "systematic long-term program
at universities and colleges to recruit and hire eligible talent for
IC [Intelligence Community] agencies and components," and to
"increase the [intelligence recruit­ing] pipeline of students … with
emphasis on women and ethnic minorities in critical skill areas."
Specifically, ICCAE seeks to "provide internships, co-ops, graduate
fellowships and other related opportunities across IC agencies to
eli­gible students and faculty for intelligence studies immersion,"
and to "support selective international study and regional and
overseas travel opportunities to enhance cultural and language
immer­sion." ICCAE's aim is to shower with fellowships, scholarships
and grants those universities that are adapting their curricula to
align with the political agenda of American intelligence agencies;
also to install a portal connecting ICCAE cam­puses with intelligence
agencies, through which students, faculty, students studying abroad,
and unknown others will pass. While ICCAE claims to train analysts,
rather than members of the clandestine service, the CIA historically
has not observed such boundaries.

ICCAE-funded centers have different names at different universities.
For example, at the University of Washington (UW), ICCAE funds
established the new Institute for National Security Education and
Research (INSER), Wayne State University's center is called the
Center for Academic Excellence in National Security Intelligence
Studies, and Clark Atlantic University's program is the Center for
Academic Excellence in National Security Studies.

With the economic downturn, university layoffs became a common
ocurrence. Need breeds opportunism, as scarcity of funds leads
scholars to shift the academic questions they are willing to pursue
and suspend ethical and political concerns about funding sources.
Other scholars unwilling to set aside ethical and political concerns
are keenly aware of institutional pressures to keep their outrage and
protests in-house.

Covering Up Dissent

Despite a lack of critical media cov­erage of ICCAE programs, traces
of campus dissent can be found online in faculty senate records. When
Dean Van Reidhead at the University of Texas-Pan American (UTPA)
brought a proposal for ICCAE to establish a center on cam­pus, some
faculty and graduate students spoke out against the damage to
academic freedom that the program would likely bring. Senate minutes
record that faculty "representatives spoke against and for UTPA
submitting a proposal to compete for federal money to establish an
Intelligence Community Center for Academic Excellence." At this
meeting, graduate students "listed the following demands: 1) inform
the community via press release about the possible ICCAE proposal, 2)
release the proposal draft for public review, 3) establish a
commu­nity forum on ICCAE, and 4) abolish the process of applying for
ICCAE funds." At Texas-Pan American, as at other ICCAE campuses,
administrators noted these concerns but continued with plans to bring
the intelligence agencies to campus, as if hearing and ignoring
concerns constituted shared governance.

The minutes of the University of Washington's Faculty Senate and
Faculty Council on Research record shadows of dissent that are so
vaguely referenced that they are easily missed. The minutes for the
December 4, 2008, meeting gloss over the issues raised when the
American Association of University Professors, University of
Washington chapter, had issued a strongly worded statement by
Executive Board representative Christoph Giebel, requesting
information concerning UW's INSER contacts with the Intelligence
Community. The minutes simply read: "… both Giebel and Jeffry Kim
[INSER director] answered a series of good questions that resulted in
a fair, tough and serious conversation." What these "good questions"
were and the nature of this "tough and serious conversation" are not
mentioned in the minutes, as if "good questions" were not important
enough to enter into a public record. Similarly, the nature of
faculty objections to INSER are glossed over in the 1/29/09 UW Senate
minutes, which simply listed the findings of the Faculty Council on
Research that "a number of email communications have come through the
faculty senate that reflect a range in attitude toward the INSER program."

In fact, a significant portion of this faculty "range in attitudes
toward the INSER program" is most accurately characterized as
outraged. I have heard from faculty at other ICCAE flagship campuses
that some form of internal dissent has occurred on each of their
campuses, and professors at UW have sent me documents, quoted below,
clarifying the extent of the campus's disquiet over the intelligence
agencies insertion into their campus; an insertion whose success
should be described as a silent coup.

Faculty and students' public silence at ICCAE universities over these
developments needs some comment. The post-9/11 political climate
casts a pall of orthodoxy over critical discussions of militarization
and national security, and the rise of anti-intellectual media
pundits attacking those who question increasing American
militarization adds pressure to muzzle dissent. Faculty at public
universities often feel these pressures more than their colleagues at
private institutions. There are also natural inclinations to try and
keep elements of workplace dissent internal, but two factors argue
against this public silence. First, most of the ICCAE institutions
are publicly funded universities drawing state taxes; the state
citizens funding these universities deserve to be alerted to concerns
over the ways these programs can damage public institutions. Second,
university administrators have been free to ignore faculty's harsh,
publicly silent, internal dissent. Keeping dissent internal has not
been an effective resistance tactic.

Inaudible Uproar at UW

In a step moving beyond internal private critiques of ICCAE programs,
multiple professors at the University of Washington have provided me
internal memos sent by professors to administrators. These memos
document the breadth of internal faculty dissent over administrators'
October 2006 decisions to bring the CIA and other
intelligence agencies to the UW campus.

Initially, the UW administration appeared to appreciate faculty
concerns. In October 2005, David Hodge, UW dean of Arts and Sciences,
met with School of International Studies faculty to discuss proposals
to establish affiliations with U.S. intelligence agencies, after
International Studies faculty wrote the administration, expressing
opposition to any affiliation linking them with the CIA and other
intelligence agencies. This group of faculty wrote that such
developments would "jeopardize the abilities of faculty and students
to gain and maintain foreign research and study permits, visas, and
open access to and unfettered interaction with international research
hosts, partners, and counterpart institutions," and they worried that
any such relation­ships would "endanger the safety and security of
faculty and students studying and conducting research abroad as well
as their foreign hosts." One participant in these meetings told me
that the administration initially acknowledged that there were
serious risks that students and faculty working abroad could lose
research opportunities because of the CIA-linked program on campus,
and that these concerns led the administration initially to decline
any affiliation with these intelligence agency-linked programs.

But these concerns did not derail the administration's interest in
bringing the Intelligence Community on campus, and the following year
the administration of UW decided to establish the ICCAE-funded
Institute for National Security Education and Research. But after
INSER's launch, concerned internal memos continued to come from
faculty across the campus. In the past year and a half, letters
voicing strong protest from at least five academic units have been
sent by groups of faculty to deans.

In October 2008, anthropology professors Bettina Shell-Duncan and
Janelle Taylor drafted a critical memo that was voted on and approved
by the anthropology faculty and then sent to Dean Howard, Dean Cauce,
and Provost Wise, raising fears about the damage INSER could bring to
the University:

"As anthropologists, we also have more specific concerns relating to
the nature of our research, which involves long-term in-depth studies
of communities, the majority of which are located outside the United
States. Some of these communi­ties are very poor, some face
repressive governments, and some are on the receiving end of U.S.
projections of military power ... our profession's Code of Ethics
requires first and foremost that we cause no harm to the people among
whom we conduct research."

Shell-Duncan and Taylor tied disc­plinary concerns to anthropology's
core ethical principles and raised apprehen­sions that INSER funding
could convert the university into a hosting facil­ity for "military
intelligence-gathering efforts."

They pointed to:

"1) the reports that students are required to submit to INSER at the
end of their studies, and 2) the debriefing that they are required to
undergo upon their return. Although our faculty have already been
asked [to be] academic advisors for students with INSER funding, we
have never been given any information on the guidelines for the
reports, or the nature, scope or purpose of the debriefing process.
This is of particular concern given that National Security is not an
academic field of study but a military and government effort. Unless
and until we are provided with clear and compelling information that
proves otherwise, we must infer that these reports and debriefings
are, in fact, military intelligence-gathering efforts."

They cited a 2007 report (of which I am a co-author) written by an
American Anthropological Association (AAA) commission, evaluating a
variety of engagements between anthropologists and the military and
intelligence agencies. The anthropologists argued that this AAA
report found that while,
"…some forms of engagement with these agencies might be laudable, the
Commission also issued cautions about situations likely to entail
violations of the ethical principles of our profession. In
particular, the members of the Commission expressed serious concern
about 'a situation in which anthropologists would be performing
fieldwork on behalf of a military or intelligence program, among a
local population, for the purpose of supporting operations on the ground.'"

Other academic departments wrote the UW administration expressing
concerns. In November 2008, members of the Latin American Studies
division in the Henry M. Jackson School of International Studies
complained to the administration in a memo that

"in light of the U.S. Intelligence Community's extensive
track-record of undermining democracies and involvement in human
rights violations in Latin America and elsewhere, we find it
unconscionable that the UW would have formal ties with the newly
created Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI), let
alone involve our students in an exercise of gathering intelligence
information and assist it with its public relations campaign among
children in our local schools. The most recent examples of the U.S.
Intelligence Community's inexcusable behavior in Latin America are
torture at Guantanamo detention centers, collaboration with the
infamous School of the Americas, the backing of paramilitary forces
as part of the 'drug war,' ... and support for the failed coup in Venezuela…

"…Some would argue that UW should engage the Intelligence Community
as a method of constructively influencing or reforming it. To our
mind, this argument is naïve and misguided at best. The training we
provide is unlikely to change the deeply entrenched institutional
cultures among the various entities, such as the CIA, which form a
part of ODNI. In effect, then, we would be enabling the Intelligence
Community to be more effective at carrying out their indefensible
activities ... We realize that the UW faces a number of financial
constraints, perhaps now more than ever, but the needs for monies can
never justify collaboration with an Intelligence Community, which is
responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths and immeasurable
human suffering throughout the world."

Also at UW a group of Southeast Asian Studies Center faculty and
members of the History Department questioned whether the
administration had considered how the presence of INSER on campus
would taint professors and students because, in the words of the
group in the History Department, "The professional bodies of many
disciplines and professional programs have barred members from
participating in programs funded by groups like the CIA due to the
ethical conflicts such a relationship would involve. Did the
administration take this into account in the process of creating
INSER? Are there steps taken in the administration of funds from
INSER to prevent faculty from unknowingly compromising their
professional and ethical obligations?"

Among the problems facing the UW administration in creating INSER was
finding an academic structure to administer such a stigmatized
program. Because the social sciences represented hostile territory,
administrators looked to the Information School. But many Information
School faculty weren't happy about having to house INSER. A letter
signed by a dozen faculty from the International Studies Fund Group
Librarians expressed deep concerns that that housing "a CIA Officer
in Residence" would pollute perceptions of them in ways that could
"damage our ability to serve the [other campus constituencies],"
arguing that their long standing "strategy of impartial
professionalism" across the campus "has enabled us to create
collections of such depth over the years. It is also this
professional indepen­dence that has in the past protected us from
undue scrutiny by the governments of the countries that we visit and
from which we solicit information sources ­ sometimes of the most
sensitive nature ­ for our scholarly collections."

While it is encouraging to find UW faculty raising ethical,
historical, and political objections, it's far from clear that these
private critiques had any measurable effect, precisely because they
remained private.

Today, INSER hosts at least one CIA funded post-doc on the UW campus.
It is unknown how many CIA-linked employees or CIA-linked students
are now on the UW's campus. We don't know what all members of the
intelligence agencies on campus are doing, but scholars who study the
history of the agency know that in the past CIA campus operatives
have performed a range of activities that included using funding
fronts to get unwitting social scientists to conduct pieces of
research that were used to construct an interrogation and torture
manual; to establish contacts used to recruit for­eign students to
collect intelligence for the CIA; and debriefing of graduate students
upon return from foreign travel of research. We know historically
that the CIA has cultivated relationships with professors in order to
recruit students. When universities import ICCAE programs, they bring
this history with them, and, as students from ICCAE universities
travel abroad, suspicions of CIA activity will travel with them and
undermine the safety and opportunities to work and study abroad for all.

There are many good reasons to keep the CIA off campus, the most
obvious ones stress the reprehensible deeds of the agency's past (and
present). For me one good reason is that this Intelligence Community
invasion diminishes America's intelligence capacity while damaging
academia. As the Intelligence Community's "institutional culture"
seeps into ICCAE universities, we can foresee a deadening of
intellect, weakening American universities and intelligence
capacities as scholars learn to think in increasingly narrow ways,
described by President Eisenhower half a century ago in his farewell
address's warning that "a government contract becomes virtually a
substitute for intellectual curiosity."

If the United States wants intelligence reform, it needs to fund
independent scholarship, not narrow the range of discourse on our
campuses by paying cash-strapped universities to house revolving
doors between the academy and the CIA.

Universities need to be places where people can freely explore ideas,
but ICCAE inevitably brings chills to open classrooms. How long will
it take until students at ICCAE universities start to wonder about
who's reporting on free-flowing discussions in classes? With cadres
of future FBI and CIA employees on campus, those who develop
dissident political critiques will find themselves opting for a
choice between speaking their mind, or keeping silent, or softening
harsh honest critiques. As ICCAE students graduate and begin careers
requiring security clearances, accounts of academic discussions stand
to make their way into intelligence files, as clearance background
checks ask for accounts of known "subversive" acquaintances
encountered during university years.

These are foreseeable consequences. Now, that the Patriot Act removed
legal firewalls prohibiting these forms of political surveillance,
the stage has been set for a dark renaissance of the fifties to begin.

Ending the Silence

If students, faculty and citizens are concerned about ICCAE's impact
on our universities, then breaking the silence is the most effective
opposition tactic available. Anyone who wants specific information on
contacts between university administrators and ICCAE officials and
the intelligence community can use state public records laws and
federal Freedom of Information laws to request records. Given
university administrators' claims that everything is above board,
these records should not be blocked by national security exemptions;
if they are, this would be useful to know. Concerned members of
individual campuses can use these tools to access correspondence and
verify claims by university administrators about the nature of their
contact with ICCAE.

Faculty, staff, students, alumni and community members concerned
about ICCAE's presence on university campuses should form consortia
online to share information from various campuses and make common
cause. ICCAE has made rapid headway because of the internal
campus-specific, isolated nature of resistance to ICCAE. Something
like an "ICCAE Watch" or "CIA Campus Watch" website could be started
by a faculty member or grad student on an ICCAE campus, providing
forums to collect documents, stories and resistance tactics from
across the country.

Finally, tenured professors on ICCAE campuses, or on campuses
contemplating ICCAE programs, need to use their tenure and speak out,
on the record, in public: the threats presented by these developments
are exactly why tenure exists. If professors like the idea of
bringing the CIA on campus, they can publicly express these views,
but the split between the public and private reactions to ICCAE
helped usher the CIA silently back onto American university campuses.
The intelligence agencies thrive on silence. If this move is to be
countered, academic voices must publicly demand that the CIA and the
Intelligence Community explain themselves and their history in public.
--

David Price is a member of the Network of Concerned
Anthropologist. He is the author of Anthropological Intelligence:
The Deployment and Neglect of American Anthropology in the Second
World War, published by Duke University Press. He can be reached at
dprice@stmartin.edu

.

Wednesday, April 14, 2010

Indoctrinating Israeli Youths to be Warriors

Indoctrinating Israeli Youths to be Warriors

http://baltimorechronicle.com/2010/040810Lendman.shtml

by Stephen Lendman
Thursday, 8 April 2010

The modern roots go back to Zionism's founding at the First Zionist
Congress in Basle, Switzerland in 1897, its program being:

"Establishing for the Jewish people a publicly and legally assured
home in Eretz Yisrael."

Five decades later, it was accomplished by dispossessing indigenous
Palestinians, denying them the right to their land, creating a new
Jewish identity, legitimizing Jews as rightful owners, and using
superior military force to assure it against defenseless civilians,
no match against their powerful adversary.

Leading up to and after its War of Independence, Israel stayed
politically and militarily hard line, negotiating from strength,
choosing confrontation over diplomacy, naked aggression as a form of
self-defense, and occupation to seize as much of historic Palestine
as possible to secure an ethnically pure Jewish state - policies
called "Israelification (and) De-Arabization" to preserve a "Jewish character."

In his book, "The Making of Israeli Militarism," Uri Ben- Eliezer
says writing about Israeli militarism involves "ventur(ing) into an
intellectual minefield," given Jewish history under the Nazis and the
perception of Israel as a safe haven. Yet decades of Arab-Israeli
conflict produced seven full-scale wars, two Intifadas, and many
hundreds of violent incidents.

Ben-Eliezer believes that, beginning in the 1930s, militarism "was
gradually legitimized within the Yishuv, the Jewish community in
Palestine, then within the new state (was) crystallized into a value,
a formula, and an ideology." Over time, it acquired a dynamic of its
own, then during the 1948 war, it "acquired full legitimacy" and
became decisive in setting policy.

Politics and militarism were wedded to create a militaristic view of
reality. Thereafter, it was institutionalized to where "the idea of
implementing a military solution to (political problems) was not only
enshrined as a value in its own right but was also considered
legitimate, desirable, and indeed the best option."

Today, militarism is a "cardinal aspect of Israeli society," its
quintessential element under the 1986 National Defence Service Law,
requiring all Jewish Israeli citizens and permanent residents to
serve - men and women, with exemptions only for Orthodox Jews,
educational inadequacy, health, family considerations, married or
pregnant women or those with children, criminals, and other
considerations at the Defense Ministry's discretion. In addition,
most Israeli leaders are former high-ranking IDF officers, politics
and the military being inextricably connected.

Little wonder that Israel is a modern day Sparta, a nation of about
5.6 million Jews, another 500,000 settlers, able to mobilize over
600,000 combatants in 72 hours, equipped with state-of-the art
weapons and backing of the world's only superpower for whatever it wants.

Yet on March 2, 2008, McClatchy Newspapers writer Dion Nissenbaum
headlined, "Israelis show declining zest for military service," saying:

"....under the surface, something has been slowly shifting in Israel
as the nation prepares to celebrate its 60th anniversary May 14. More
and more Israelis are avoiding mandatory military service -
something" earlier considered unthinkable.

According to author and former chief Israeli military psychologist,
Dr. Rueven Gal:

"In the past, it is true that not serving in the military was
considered the exception. In more recent times, it became more
tolerable and more acceptable to people."

According to 1997 IDF statistics, less than one in ten Israeli men
avoided service. Now it's nearly triple that number, or according to
some, even higher, given the resonance of conscientious objectors,
Refusniks, students unwilling to serve in the Territories, and
"Breaking the Silence" reserves speaking out about IDF atrocities
over the past decade, especially during the Gaza war.

Women are also opting out - around 44% compared to 37% a decade
earlier. As a result, National Infrastructures Minister, Uzi Landau,
called the IDF no longer a "people's army (but rather) half the
people's army."

Given Israel's hardline militarism requiring mandatory service,
officials are seeking new ways to deter avoidance.

Indoctrinating Youths to Accept Militarism in Israeli Society and Culture

New Profile is a "Movement for the Civil-ization of Israeli Society"
away from militarism and a culture of violence, its "feminist women
and men....convinced that we need not live in a soldiers' state" and
should no longer tolerate one.

In July 2004, its report titled, "Child Recruitment in Israel"
examined how Israeli armed forces and Jewish militias indoctrinate
young children to be warriors, a practice they believe essential to stop.

Child recruitment involves more than having weapons and using them,
their being no front lines in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. In
Israel and the Territories, IDF soldiers are everywhere. "Many
military bases are located inside population centres and few Israelis
ever spend a day without meeting soldiers on duty."

As a result, a functional definition of child recruitment is as follows:

A child is anyone under 18, recruited by one or more of these methods:

by wearing an official uniform, having an official document, or in
other ways identified as an IDF or related group member, even if not formal;
by promoting or supporting IDF actions, actively or through other
services; and/or
by undergoing practical or theoretical training to perform or assist
IDF activities, formerly or otherwise.
Armed forces and security groups include Israel's military, its
police (including conscripted Border Police), General Security
Services (GSS), and Jewish militias, mostly based in settlements.
Relevant International Laws

Artictle 38(2)(3) of the Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989) states:

"State Parties shall take all feasible measures to ensure that
persons who have not attained the age of fifteen years do not take a
direct part in hostilities; (and)
State Parties shall refrain from recruiting any person who has not
attained the age of fifteen into the armed forces. In recruiting
among those persons who have attained the age of fifteen years but
who have not attained the age of eighteen years, State Parties shall
endeavour to give priority to those who are oldest."

Article 77(2) of the First Additional Protocol to the Geneva
Conventions (1977) contains similar language, and the Rome Statute of
the International Criminal Court (ICC) criminalizes the recruiting of
children under 15.

The 1990 African Charter on the Rights and Welfare of the Child
recognized 18 as the minimum recruitment age. Then in 2000, the
International Labour Organization's Worst Forms of Child Labour
Convention No. 182 condemned "all forms of slavery or practices
similar to slavery....including forced or compulsory recruitment of
children for use in armed conflict."

The Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on
the Involvement of Children in Armed Conflict (2000) prohibited
forced recruiting and raised the minimum age to 16.

Contrary to international law, Israeli legislation takes precedence
over accepted norms and standards. Conscription at 18 is mandatory,
at times includes those six months younger, and children under 18 may
enlist voluntarily, but aren't used as combatants until coming of age.

Child recruitment is also done informally, the idea being to prepare
underage youths for future mandatory service. Ben-Eliezer wrote how
early Zionist settlers established militant organizations, notably
the Bar Giora (named for Simon bar Giora in ancient Roman times),
Hashomer (The Guard), and the Haganah (Defense), small in scale but
profound in influencing younger minds. He explained saying:

"The formative years of the younger generation produced an ethos
created by local experience: guarding fields and crops, fighting with
Arab children, being given a weapon at the age of bar mitzvah (a
boy's thirteenth birthday). This was the childhood experience of
prominent members of the young generation (tempering their outlook)
with suspicion, which frequently became hostility, and they reached
maturity feeling that a confrontation between (Arabs and Jews) was inevitable."

Before 1948, very young children engaged in military activities,
doing so eagerly as a sort of game. As a result, a militaristic
worldview developed, especially among youths later becoming leaders.
Militant groups formed at this time, including Fosh (a Hebrew acronym
for Field Units), the Palmach (Striking Force), Stern Gang (Israeli
Freedom Fighters -Lehi in Hebrew) and Irgun (National Military
Organization - Etzel in Hebrew).

Before Israel's War of Independence, recruitment was a "Duty to
Volunteer." Then it was mandatory after the IDF's establishment on
May 26, 1948, replacing the paramilitary Haganah.

It's still called a privilege, a "noble and worthy action," today
moulding young minds to be eager when called, but they participated
earlier as well. In the 1948 battle for Jerusalem, Youth Battalion
trainees, aged 16 and 17, were combatants. So were women.
Defining Israeli Militarism

New Profile calls it "a way of thinking, which promotes forceful
solutions, usually military ones, as preferable and even desirable
ways of solving problems." As a result, security forces are society's
most valued and revered, "whose needs and opinions come second to
none." Israel's first Prime Minister, David Ben-Gurion, called "The
whole nation....an army and the whole land (a) front."

Today's IDF is the world's fourth most powerful military, nuclear
armed with state-of-the-art weapons and technology, an active space
and satellite program, biological and chemical capabilities, and a
large per capita military budget, financed generously by Washington.

The military also controls 48% of public lands, and recycles its
commanders into high government positions, including municipality and
regional council heads, mayors, ministers, and heads of state. Others
get top public administration positions or serve as business
executives or directors.

"The unquestioned prestige enjoyed by top military officers emanates
downwards, and some of it can still be enjoyed by" common soldiers.
Children see and feel it everywhere, including from adult family
members, from religious leaders, and in school. In addition, imagery
and weapons are ubiquitous, including old tanks, guns and fighter
jets visible in public places.
Israeli Children as Future Soldiers - Militarized Education Starting
in Kindergarten, at Home, and on Streets

"The military is physically present in schools and school
activities," uniformed soldiers there, many teaching classes to
program young minds. Further, teachers, especially principals, are
retired career officers, and school walls are adorned with names and
photos of fallen heros among their graduates. Field trips for all
ages are to military memorials on former battlegrounds.

Curricula and textbooks reflect militarism, from kindergarten through
high schools that have mandatory programs in all state-run ones
called "preparation for the IDF" that includes training. Glorifying
military heros and conquests while vilifying Palestinians are featured.

Symbolic recruitment precedes conscription. It consists of
indoctrinating youths to feel part of the military, mobilized for
war, ready for combat, and eager to participate. More still by
kindergarten and elementary school children sending gift packages to
soldiers, especially on holidays, expressing gratitude in personal letters.

A 1974 teachers' guide titled, "When a Nation Reports for Duty"
promotes enlistment saying:

"The Entire people carry the burden of the war effort, and it is
divided between those who wear the IDF uniform and the civilians who
are not directly recruited by the IDF.

Therefore it should be understood that (every) civilian carries the
burden of the war effort."

Children learn early, and it sticks, preparing them for later
conscription and a lifetime of military support. Besides school,
they're exposed in ceremonies, commemorations, speeches, field trips
to military bases, and holiday celebrations of battles between "us"
(Jews) and "the bad guys" (earlier Nazis, Egyptians, Persians, Arabs)
and now Palestinians. As a result, children are imbued "to accept
military force and war as a natural state and a natural response to
conflict situations."
Soldiers in Israeli Schools

They're both former IDF teachers and administrators as well as
"uniformed soldiers on duty, stationed in schools as part of the
school staff....The presence of former soldiers, especially retired
high-ranking officers, in the education system is considered by many
in Israeli society, including government, to be a positive influence
on children," especially since preparing youths for military service
is a core educational goal.

In collaboration with the Ministries of Education and Defense, the
IDF operates two large-scale youth programs:

the Teacher-Soldier one to train soldiers to become teachers, to
complement civilian staff despite their poor qualifications; and
the Youth-Guide one works with underprivileged children, in some
cases for Youth Battalions; others as Preparation for Military
Service coordinators.

They're nearly always in uniform, report to civilian and military
superiors, promote militarism and wars for defense, and children
acclimate to viewing them as an integral part of their education and
a future obligation.

Indoctrinating youths early blurs the line between Israeli military
and civil society, promotes militarism, and makes conscription seem
inevitable, necessary, and desirable.
Preparation for Military Service

For most male and female Israeli youths, military service is a rite
of passage, a natural step in preparation for adulthood, something
policy makers have been cognizant of for decades.

After the 1973 Yom-Kipper War, the above-mentioned "When a Nation
Reports for Duty" guide explained the role of all Israelis during
emergencies and helped children understand it clearly.

In 1984, actively preparing youths for military service began when
the IDF and Ministry of Defense published a guide called "Towards
Service in the IDF," explaining:

the privilege of serving;
adapting to military and basic training;
developing fitness in preparation;
the IDF as a positive force in society; and
and preparing parents to accept their children's role as future warriors.

Since the run-up to the 1948 war, training for military service was
common, especially through Youth Battalions, but in 1984 programs
included school indoctrination "as part of the ordinary curriculum."

Today's program is called "Willingness to Serve and Readiness for the
IDF," mandated for three years in high school, the program's goal being:

"Preparing the entire youth population to service in the IDF, while
strengthening their readiness and willingness to perform a
substantial and contributing service, each to his abilities, and
emphasizing the importance of serving in combat units."

Content includes combat legacy stories on field trips, the ethics of
war, familiarization with different IDF units, physical education,
and Arabic studies to enlist Israelis for intelligence. The format is
regimented, emphasizing discipline, and a "Soldier for a Day" program
takes children to a military base for descriptive presentations,
especially about elite combat units.

Several civilian programs also prepare them for future service,
including "Preparation for Combat Fitness" courses, "Youth Battalions
Special Forces Induction," and "Follow Me." It's common "to see large
groups of young men run about on public beaches, in preparation for
military service."

The "Naale Program (a Hebrew acronym for Youth Immigrating Before
Parents) promotes immigration for foreign Jewish children,
encouraging them to come to Israel, attend high school, and become
citizens. It presents military service as a major socializing force,
stressing benefits such as acceptance in Israeli society.
Israeli Law Provisions

Article 44 of Israel's 1986 National Defence Service Law authorizes
the IDF to obtain information about everyone Intended for Security
Service. Educators, employers, and others asked to help must cooperate.

Under Article 43, persons Intended for Security Service can't travel
abroad without Defense Ministry permission, although exemptions are
freely granted with restrictions such as time limits.

Prior to conscription, most children receive a warrant at home,
requiring they report to their Regional Conscription Bureau, a
practice called "first call-up" for initial screening, data
verification, medical and intelligence tests, and a personal
interview. If after three warrants, children don't comply, police
intervention may follow.

Military High Schools

Besides ordinary ones, some military high schools include:

Mevo'ot Yam with 500 students who wear uniforms, participate in
parades, and learn weapons use in preparation for future Navy service;
Air Force technical schools for cadets preparing for future IAF service; and
the Amal 1 network - one of the largest high school ones in Israel, a
joint military-civilian project for future Air Force service.

Courses combine civilian and military studies, children being groomed
to become soldiers.

Yet Article 77(2) of the First Additional Protocol to the Geneva
Conventions (1977) prohibits recruiting them under 15. In Israeli
military schools, they're "regularly recruited" as young as 13 or 14.
It persists because of militarism's pervasive influence in Israeli
society and culture.
Military Training for Children

In all Israeli high schools, mandatory Youth Battalion Training Week
simulates army life for 11th and 12th graders on military bases. In
uniforms, it includes:

reception, processing, orientation, and marches;
night and day weapons and field training; and
lessons about battle heritage, military ranks, discipline, adapting,
service commitment, and purity of arms, etc.

During the entire time, youths are surrounded by soldiers and treated
like them gain familiarity with military life. In groups of about 20,
treatment and conditions are rigorous, obedience a must, and for
those who disobey, punishments include extra calisthenics, running,
and chores like latrine duty.

In times of emergency Youth Battalions may be recruited for active
service as they were during the 1948 war.

For boys 16 or older, elite combat unit tryouts are held, initially
for two days, and for qualifiers up to five, involving demanding and
exhausting mental and physical fitness tests. The IDF's reference to
"substantial service" strongly emphasizes Elite Combat Unit
enlistment - the "cream of the crop" for the "most exciting fighting
activities."

For the few selected, pressure to be accepted is intense because
participation is considered a great honor.

Military Use of Child Labor

Arranged through schools, children are enlisted to support the IDF,
especially during times of emergency or special needs. Besides
training, they do laundry, sort uniforms, wash dishes, set dining
room tables, clean vehicles, and do other chores, freeing up soldiers
for military duties.

To support a war effort, children as young as 15 and a half are
enlisted for "Labour Service (to protect) the State or public
security or for providing vital services to the population." In all
cases, schools cooperate, and during extreme times, children have no choice.
Civil Guard Use of Children

The Israeli Civil Guard is a police-run community-based organization,
founded in 1974 to mobilize civilians for protection against Arab
militia attacks. Today, the Guard patrols community areas, challenges
Palestinians, harasses them, at times shoots them, and performs other
civil services like securing public transportation, educational
institutions, open markets and parking lots as well as helping out at
checkpoints.

About 15% of Guard volunteers are children, eligible at age 15 to
join in a restricted status that's removed a year later. Parents
consent is also required. Youths are armed, and some schools give
extra credit for participating.

Members of Emergency Squads are mostly adults to be first called on
as needed, but since 2002 high school students have increasingly been enlisted.

Although part of Israel's police force, the 1971 Police Order's
Section 8 is titled "The Israeli Police Force in Military Functions,
and Article 92(a) states:

"At times of war or emergency, the Minister is entitled, if the
government agrees, to declare the Israeli Police Force, or a part of
it, a military force which might be employed in military functions
for the protection of the State."

In the West Bank, children as young as 15 guard settlements and other
security work, performing functions that include working in police
headquarters and patrolling with arms they're trained to use.

Some of them "grow up believing they must banish the Palestinians,
and act" violently with impunity, including harassing them freely,
beating them, breaking into their homes, destroying their property,
and at times killing them.

There's little difference between "training and assigning a child to
do work as an armed (settlement) guard (or) assigning (them as)
soldier(s) at the front in wartime....The formalities of whether one
officially belongs to the army or not are hardly relevant," given the
pervasive militarization of Israeli society.

Although civilian service is voluntary, children are raised "in a
hostile and violent environment in the middle of a confrontation
area." In the Territories, many believe it's their land. They must
protect it, and Palestinians are enemies. Under intense social
pressure, they perform at a very immature age when they're too young
to know the consequences, yet are conditioned to be militant and obedient.
Using Palestinian Children as Collaborators

Israel's GSS recruits Palestinian informants, including children, for
field agents to provide intelligence - collaborators most
Palestinians call traitors "worthy of death."

Tactics involve detaining Palestinian children, then pressuring and
torturing them to comply, much like recruiting the South Lebanon Army
(SLA) after the 1982 invasion and occupation. Under IDF and GSS
supervision, SLA Lebanese citizens, including children as young as
12, were used as collaborators for intelligence purposes.

During the second Intifada, Palestinians (including children) were
used as human shields, forced at gunpoint to comply.

Some Final Comments

Israeli militarized education starts early in overt and symbolic ways
to condition young minds to accept service as natural, vital, and an
honor for Jewish citizens. The "educational system is so committed to
(promoting) military service that it (fails) to consider" the harm to
new youth generations who grow up thinking wars and violence are
natural, peace unattainable, Arabs inferior, and Palestinians enemies.

Militarizing society is corrupting and self-destructive, recruiting
child soldiers criminal and unconscionable. "All forms....must stop."
The alternative is unacceptable, illegal, and intolerable.

.