Militarization of Daily Life II

In my original response to the question "In what ways is your daily life militarized?" I answered with only a handful of responses. Including civilians wearing camouflage, Army/Navy stores that allow civilians the opportunity to buy military goods, and Air Force shows that showcase fighter jets performing tricks. I really didn't have any idea what militarization was or entailed. Now when I think about my daily life I'm overwhelmed by how militarized it is. Army commercials during popular television, the effects of base closure in my hometown, my Dad's own military history, recruitment centers all over the country, seeing people wearing camouflage, dog tags and military style combat boots, toys, movies. Just trying to list everything in my life that is militarized overwhelms me. 

I also thought about the first paper we wrote. I spent time in Wal-Mart trying to find militarized items. I think if I went back to Wal-Mart with the information I'v learned this semester I could come out with an even bigger list. At the beginning of the semester I just looked at things like camouflage clothing and military movies and toys and thought I had found everything that was militarized... think back however, I don't think I even scratched the surface of militarized items in my daily life. 

I'm glad now to at least be aware of militarization, it's something that I think a lot of people never stop and consider. Militarization seems natural to the American public and seemed completely normal to me, now however I think I'm armed with the tools to recognize and interpret militarization. 

New Air Force Command to Fight in Cyberspace

I think it's good to be aware of the threats that cyberspace can pose to a countries security. However, in the case of the United States my biggest fear is that the government and the Air Force will begin overstepping their boundaries in looking for terrorists and instead begin targeting the American public. Just because the government has the power to look into cyberspace doesn't mean they should abuse that power. I feel like Air Force control over cyberspace just adds to the big brother syndrome much of America is already feeling. The government is widening their powers so that soon enough no where will be safe to have a private conversation. Don't get me wrong, I think the idea of cyberspace protection is a good one in theory but in practice I'm not sure how great it will actually be. It certainly feels a little big brother to me. 

The "Korea Model" in Iraq

I have a couple of problems with the "Korea-Model" being implemented in Iraq. First of all, the idea of Korea has negative connotation. The Korean war was viewed as a failure for the United States by Americans. I suppose if we want to give the Iraq war an even worse name we should begin comparing it to Korea. Secondly, while Korea was easily split between, North, South and the DMZ Iraq will not be quite so easily divided. The Iraqi population is made up of many diverse groups, we can not hope to split the country and then continue to rule. Thirdly, with the "Korea-Model" the United States takes away Iraqi sovereignty from its people. The "purpose" of the Iraq war was to bring democracy to Iraq, with this plan we are basically ignoring our own reasons for entering Iraq in the first place. I think its terrible to even consider this plan,  not only does it go against democracy but it also continues to divide a war-torn nation. Iraqis should be allowed to define their own government and be allowed to deal with threats rather than continue to rely on the military presence of the United States to protect them from the people of their own nation.

Ideally, we should transfer the reigns to the Iraqi government and allow them to decide whether or not they want any US military presence, and no matter their decision we should follow their orders. Returning sovereignty to Iraq is key. We need to lessen the military presence their and the only way to do that is to allow Iraqis decision making power in their own lives. We can not force the increase of bases or the permanent installations of troops because it benefits our desperate attempts at natural resources. We need to recognize sovereignty and back away. The "Korea-Model" infringes on many of things Americans believe classify democracy, so obviously we can not follow that course of action. 

Why Some People Like Military Bases and Why Some Don't

After reading about the villagers in Korea I completely understand why they are opposed to the military base. As the one villager said, his ancestors are buried there, his children grew up there, and his sweat is in the fields, he has history there. The idea of the military coming in and forcing out villagers is awful. Just because the US military made a deal with Korea does not mean that villagers should be kicked off of land that is rightfully theirs. 

On the other hand...

I understand why people resist base closure. I live in midcoast Maine, and the closest base to my house is about 1/2 an hour away, and is in the process of being closed. The transformation from a military base into civilian businesses will not be completed till after 2010 when the military is completely moved out. The town of Brunswick is reliant on the military and military families to keep the economy strong. In these uncertain economic times, the closing of the Brunswick Naval Air Base has sent many in the area into a frenzied panic. 

"The base employs 2,687 active-duty personnel and 583 full-time civilian personnel. All of them will be gone by 2010. Base redevelopment officials say that including dependents, the base closing will represent a loss of about 5,000 people from the midcoast areas." 

For a town with a population of about 15,000 the removal of 5,000 economically stable families and individuals will potentially shift the entire midcoast economy. We are dependent on those 5,000 people to live and shop in the biggest city within a 45 minute radius. So I completely understand why many populations are dependent on the business of military bases. 

In the end though, I don't think it is possible to compare the Korean example and bases in the United States. US bases in foreign countries is most often seen as imperialism, whereas in the US we are taught that in order to support our bases we allow them to protect our homes. Also, the Korean examples seems so much worse because their is visible protest to the base. Granted, I wasn't alive for the arrival of the Brunswick Naval Air Station. Needless to say I have no problem with closing bases in foreign countries and returning sovereignty to its rightful owners, in the US however I begin to question the reasons. 

"Sex Among Allies, Military Prostitution in U.S. - Korea Relations" by Katharine H.S. Moon

The thing that saddened me most about the introduction to Moon's book was Korean society's embarrassment at what their economy and culture has forced some women into. Moon says that many women turn to prostitution because they are orphaned or widowed by war, or come from extremely poor families. Korean society dictates that prostitution is something terrible but at the same time seem to condone it for its military relations. It is hypocritical to banish prostitutes from accepted society but still condone the bars and clubs that market women. 

Before reading this article, I knew about military and prostitute relations and that they were common. But reading the stories and first-hand accounts of abortions, miniscule wages gave the whole thing a new sort of reality. In the "Hospitality - What Price" article I was really struck by the account of Inday, the mother of Maria. Because she couldn't work after the 5 month mark of her pregnancy, she couldn't afford a caesarean in order to save her child, nor drugs to dull the pain. I couldn't get over the treatment by the doctors and nurses and that they discharged her from the hospital when she so clearly needed help. The conditions that the Korean prostitutes must live under are horrifying. As a last resort they rely on their beauty and sexuality for survival and in turn must be ignored by traditional society. 

The whole dynamic of the situation upset me. That society forces women into these careers and then ostracizes them for their choices. The military and the Korean government and society are all equally responsible for the awful situation forced on the poor women of Korea, and should take responsibility and begin working towards a solution. 

Trouble Commenting

So I have noticed that people don't seem to know where to comment on my blog. You just have to click the pencil at the bottom of my posts to comment. So for future comments just do that. THANKS!

Diego Garcia

After reading through the websites outlining the Diego Garcia history I realized the articles said nothing about the native residents of Diego Garcia. So through a little internet surfing I come to realize exactly why the websites wouldn't say anything.... it's because the native residents of Diego Garcia were part of a forced migration during the 1960s and 1970s. The British and US governments settled an agreement to share the island for military purposes. The native people were relocated to Mauritius. I found it pretty difficult to find any information of the depopulation of Diego Garcia. The websites that we read for class seemed to care more about the flora and fauna of the islands than the people they had displaced. There is an active movement in progress for Diego Garcians to be allowed to return to their land, but little has come out of it. In the quest for military control and presence in the pacific both the UK and the US have displaced an entire population. It made me really sad to think about the native population being forced to migrate to Mauritius and then not being assimilated in to that culture. Essentially the natives of Diego Garcia are a stateless group because of the quest for military influence and power. Obviously, the right thing to do is allow Diego Garcians to return to Diego Garcia, but even with that right granted, there are still 16 seperate military commands on the island. The only way to rectify any of this is to demobilize and leave Diego Garcia so that future Diego Garcians can live in their own country without the threat of military presence.

Why Can't We Reduce the US Military Presence on Okinawa?

There were a few things in the speech by Ota Masahide that caught my attention...

1) That the occupation of Okinawa was in violation of the Hague Treaty. I guess I can understand why after WWII other countries might look the other way as the US violated an international treaty. The fear created from the War understandably made people scared to allow some countries free reign or to be militarily unsupervised. At the same time however, I think that Americans have lost sight of the fact that we became a country because we rebelled against foreign occupation. Certainly our occupation of Okinawa is quite similar. That part of the speech really upset me, but I guess I shouldn't be that surprised. The United States tends to do whatever they want and disregard concerns from other countries.

2) That 75% of the US bases in Japan are based in Okinawa and that Okinawa only makes up 1% of Japan's total area. Perhaps because Okinawa was the site of the only battle fought on Japanese soil during WWII the US put bases there. Or perhaps because the rest of Japan is able to pawn the bases of on the under-represented Okinawan population. The people of Okinawa carry the majority of the burden of placed on the Japanese by US military bases.

3) That Okinawan people only occupy 7 seats in the legislature out of 752. With that kind of skew on seats in the legislature it seems to be nearly impossible to ask the Japanese government for anything that might help Okinawa. They are a small island that is made to carry the burden of US military presence. The effects of which can be seen in their per capita income which is 71% lower than the mainland's or their unemployment rate which is double that of the mainland.

4) That US military personnel are committing crimes and not being held accountable. "American servicemen have committed 111 rapes, 23 murders, 357 robberies and 2, 479 burglaries." (262) The Okinawan population does not need the added stress of American servicemen committing crimes. This part was especially upsetting to me.

5) And finally, why can't we reduce the US military presence on Okinawa? I genuinely don't understand why we feel the need to have such a heavy presence on the Island. I understand the need to have a presence in Japan and in Asia, but I don't understand why it has to be so concentrated and large. It's time to start returning land to the Okinawan people and helping them return to a lifestyle of living that allows them to succeed.

"The New Geopolitics of Energy" by Michael Klare

The article by Michael Klare takes an interesting approach, by narrowing the issues of military presence in foreign countries, the Pentagon's plans, and the problem of dwindling resources into one heading. The Pentagon seems to be focused completely on the military control of resources around the globe, not cooperation and funding for new energy alternatives.

Historically, a majority of American foreign policy has been directed at controlling resources. Especially our relations with Latin America and the Middle East are characterized by the exploitation of resources. Now we are seeing our interest in oil played out through the Iraq war, many Americans even site oil as the primary reason for the intervention in Iraq. Since we couldn't learn to cooperate with Iraq we intervened. This kind of aggressive foreign policy has the potential to send American troops all over the globe in order to gain access to resources. We spend time bulking up the military in order to gain control over resources when we could be using that money to fund research for alternative energy sources. I can't wrap my head around that idea, that we would rather just take from other countries than find a renewable and reliable alternative source. Eventually resources are going to run out, whether its 200 years from now or 25 years from now, we need to come to terms with that and start working towards a solution.

I like Klare's last paragraph where he brings it back to the current election. Without saying names Klare clearly shows that a vote for McCain would lead to "greater reliance on imported fuels, increased militarization of our foreign fuel dependency and prolonged struggle with other powers for control over the world's remaining supplies of fossil fuels." (7) While McCain has tried to distance himself from the current administrations foreign policies and decisions, these things sound remarkably familiar. The American public has witnessed what this administration's foreign policy has gotten us into, perhaps its time to try a different route. As Klare puts it, "Rarely has a policy choice been as stark or as momentous for the future of our country." (8)

Stambuk and Sandars

The creation of bases in other countries before WWII challenged the national sovereignty of countries. Many of the leases that allowed for the bases to be built also allowed for the United States to have autonomous control of that area. To me it seemed like the bases were more like states being created in foreign countries. The example that Stambuk sites in Samoa makes it seem like the United States (and other foreign powers, Germany and Great Britain) simply took advantage of the fact that they could get the Samoan government to fold to their demands. They also did not take into account the needs of the Samoan people. The sudden increase in restrictions upset the general population and allowed for unrest within the country. I guess it was important to protect overseas interests and therefore neccessary to have some sort of launching point other than U.S. soil but I also think that the U.S. military needs to have some sort of accountability to the demands of the country and the people they are displacing with the construction of foreign bases. In comparison to the construction of bases during and after WWII, the construction pre-WWII seems minimal.

Sandars points out that 443 bases were created during the War. How did the United States even have time to build all those bases while being involved in the war? I can't even fathom the amount of money, people and supplies that went into 443 bases. This sounds dumb, but I didn't even know the U.S. had 443 foreign bases. Obviously I knew we had a lot, but once I see the number (not even the entire number I'm sure) it just seems to hit home. This post-war development signaled the United States' rise to power as the "global police." After the war the UK couldn't contiune its role as a super power because of the toll that the war played on their economy and country. The US was in a dominant position to rise to power, and combined with the threat of communism, the US did just that. Not only did US military presence increase around the globe but the US also began their role in protecting other governments from communsim. Suddenly we start seeing the involvement of US military intervention in Latin America and other countries. US supported military coups that put in power extremely repressive dictators througout Latin America. WIth the increase in bases we see an increase in interventions and a lack of recognition of nations' rights.

These two articles reminded me of the movie showed during the Finger Lakes Environmental Film Festival last year about the Marshall Islands "Collateral Damage", and how a US military base there has caused devestation among the Marshellese people, and still nothing is done. The military base is a symbol of affluence and money while the native citizens of the Marshall Islands live in absolute poverty just a few miles from the base. Since the occupation of the Marshall Islands, the average life span has decreased to 62 years, the Islands have a 23% higher rate of TB than the US and from 1946-1968 67 nuclear devices were tested on or around the Island. The effects of the US military base on the Marshellese people is huge, but still the US stays in order to protect our interests, even if the native citizens are severely harmed in the process. 

Interesting Email

Did anyone else get this email? This is what I woke up to in my inbox this morning. Interesting considering all the readings we did about recruitment and the all volunteer force.

UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS

Officer Selection Station

Central New York

Phone: (315) 474-0606

Dear University Student,

Please allow me to introduce myself. My name is Captain Caine Goyette. I select some of America’s brightest college students and graduates to become Marine Corps Officers.

Selected undergraduates can pursue a Marine Officer’s commission through our paid summer leadership training program, called the Platoon Leaders Class (PLC), while near-term graduates enroll in our Officer Candidate Class (OCC) program.

THIS IS NOT ROTC. All training takes place during the summer. There are no classes or other requirements during the academic year and thus no interruption in your school activities.

We’ve intentionally designed this program with no obligation for active service. This arrangement lets you gain an appreciation for the opportunities and challenges associated with becoming a Marine Corps Officer before you decide if it’s what you really want to do after college.

If you successfully complete this summer training and go on to receive your college degree, the Marine Corps will offer you a commission. You will decide at that time to accept the offer and become a Marine Lieutenant or to decline it to pursue other options.

The summer training is conducted at Officer Candidate School in Quantico, Virginia, for either 6 or 10 weeks, depending on your expected college graduation date. It is an exceptionally challenging curriculum that is specifically designed to develop your mental and physical abilities and test your leadership potential.

Qualified applicants interested in aviation may be GUARANTEED FLIGHT TRAINING at Pensacola, Florida for instruction in becoming a jet or helicopter pilot after graduation.

Marine Officers will pursue one of a variety of occupational specialties. What sets Marine Officers apart from other services is the extensive leadership training, experience and management opportunities that all Second Lieutenants receive immediately after commissioning. INC., the magazine for business entrepreneurs, recently characterized the Marine Corps Officer program as “the best management training program in America”.

I am conducting informational interviews and accepting applications for the upcoming classes at Officer Candidate School. If this opportunity sounds interesting to you, call my office at 315-474-0606, or e-mail me at caine.goyette@marines.usmc.mil. If nothing else, the information that we offer will provide you with additional career options and will allow you to make a more informed decision about your future.

Additional information is also available at www.marineofficer.com.

Sincerely,

Caine Goyette

Captain USMC

Department of Defense Contracts

I looked at the DOD contracts given out on Oct. 1st, 2008 for the Navy and was absolutely horrified. For just the navy, the contracts equaled OVER a billion dollars. $1,538,305,324 to be exact. Three of those contracts were modifications to already received contracts meaning that the sum of the contracts is actually substantially larger. Maybe I was so horrified by the huge number because I can't even conceptualize a billion dollars. I just can't seem to wrap my head around such an enormous number, and that's only the Navy. Never mind the Army, the Air Force, and countless other administrations. It's no wonder the US government is in debt... what I'd really like to know from looking at the DOD contracts is actually what comes from each one. All of the contracts are followed by a blurb describing their purpose, but as a citizen I have no idea what they mean. I guess I never realized exactly how much it costs to keep the military running. As we get further and further into this class I'm beginning to understand that there is a lot to do with the military that I was completely oblivious to up to this point in my life.

"Behind Military Analysts, the Pentagon's Hidden Hand" - David Barstow

What struck me the most about this article was the fact that independent news sources are not questioning the credentials, background, business ties and information that the military analysts supply. Also that the news sources don't apply the same ethical standards to the analysts. It is the duty of the news media to supply unbiased news to the American public, and by allowing analysts to spew Pentagon "talking points" all over the airwaves clearly goes against this notion. There is a clear conflict of interest when analysts are being payed by the Pentagon to say one thing and by networks to appear on certain shows. It appears to be all about the profits and ratings rather than the truth.

On top of the conflict of interest the other point that came as a surprise to me, was the fear that the analysts had of displeasing the Pentagon. "Mr. Eads said he had at times held his tongue on television for fear that 'some four-star could call up and say, 'kill that contract". This kind of thing should not be happening. I hold the networks, the Pentagon and the actual analysts responsible for this. Even when analysts knew the information was manipulated they still presented it to the American public. I guess the whole problem traces back to the fact that the war is a) not going the way the Pentagon had hoped it would and b) no matter what the Pentagon had to make it appear to be going well. Everyone is responible in this situation but ultimately it is the Pentagon and what I would call lack of morals. It is wrong to portray something differently than it is, especially when American lives, economy, budget and countless other things rely on the truth. The article definitely left me with an even less respect for the Pentagon officials than I already had.

The Pentagon Invades Your Life

I had no idea. Absolutely none. The first few examples that Turse gives in his article of examples of companies with Department of Defense (DOD) contracts didn't shock me. When he managed to fill five pages with examples I was shocked. Here are the ones that really got me: M&M Mars, Hershey, ESPN, Walt Disney, NASCAR, NFL, X-Men Comic Books, Apple, Google, Starbucks and Budweiser, and thats only a partial list of what's actually out there. I just don't understand. Why would half of these companies have DOD contracts? Starbucks? Do we need better coffee in Iraq? I guess I understand for some of them, its about advertising the military. Since it's an all volunteer force now it's more important to sell a product, but for others I'm totally at a loss. 

Before reading this article I obviously understood that the Pentagon gives out DOD contracts. But I thought it was for companies like Blackwater, Lockheed Martin and Bechtel, privatized military forces. Not companies that make everyday products for civilians. This just reinforces the idea that militarization is occurring all around us, without our knowledge. This part is made especially clear by Turse's character Rick saying "Thank god we never supported this war" Without any knowledge civilians are supporting the war. Everything we buy seems to be directly connected to the Pentagon and by extension the war in Iraq. So, basically, in order to protest the war people would literally have to live off the grid. 

The whole article just left me confused. I don't know how to react to this really. I'm astounded by the number of DOD contracts and the span of companies that receive them. And a little sad that people who don't support the war, can't seem to not support the war after all. 

Corporate Warriors

I'm not sure how to react to this article. I can't decide whether I like the idea of privatized military forces (PMFs) or if I don't. In situations where conflict escalates and the country can not quell the violence I tend to think that the interference of PMFs is generally a good thing. Like in Sierra Leone where the firm Executive Outcomes stepped in. Had they not assisted the government of Sierra Leone rebel forces could have potentially taken over the entire country and caused a lot more strife.

I begin to lose faith in PMFs however, when they start taking contracts based only on the monetary value. By basing assistance on how much people can pay for their services, morals and ethics seem to fly out the window. Granted, war is never really an ethical solution, I still find it somewhat terrifying that drug cartels and rebel forces can hire these firms to train their forces and fight alongside them.

There are so many complications to the idea of a "corporate warrior" that I can't seem to get my head around it. I seem to be going back and forth between accepting the corporate warriors and being horrified by the implications of privatized military forces.

On another note, Singer mentions the corporation Bechtel. Bechtel played a part in the Democratic Republic of Congo in the mid 90s. I only know something about this corporation because of a research paper for a Latin American politics class. Bechtel was responsible for the privatization of water resources in Bolivia. The company took water resources from the very poor, privatized them, increased the rates and basically cut of the poor citizens of Bolivia from access to water. Knowing this about the company makes me nervous about their involvement in other international problems. They took water, a basic human right, away from a whole group of citizens, so the idea of them rebuilding countries is somewhat scary to me. I'm again struck by the disregard of ethics in search of profit.

Response to Dan Rodricks "Require All Young People to Serve the Nation"

I think I need to read this article with a more objective perspective. On a first read, the idea that everyone 18-21 serve the country for two years seems ridiculous. I think that because I am 20 and fall within that age group I find the notion of leaving college to either serve in the military or serve a domestic or foreign assignment horrifying. I like college why would I want to do something else? That same idea, however, puts into perspective exactly what Rodricks says about my generation. That we only think about ourselves. I find this idea partially correct and partially totally off the mark. There are kids my age who only care whether they have the hottest gadget or the most expensive bag, but then there are the kids who devote their spring breaks to helping the underprivileged or help clean up the community. I would say that a good portion of my generation has a sense of civic duty, at the same time however, many do not. Its unfair though to criticize just the 18-21 year olds. The problem of only caring about yourself permeates all age groups. So maybe it would be good to require service at a young age so that my generation doesn't grow up to be like every other American. But in reality if this sort of "draft" was put into place there would be too much rebellion. Who decides whether you serve in the military or get to experience a foreign country volunteering? If given the choice I'd obviously choose public service over military service and I think that most of my generation would feel the same way. There would be mass protesting and dodging of the draft if this sort of thing ever was put into place. It's a good idea in theory but in practice, I feel like it would fail. As Rodricks says, many young men and women leave high school or college with no idea of the direction they want to take. Yes, that is true. But we should be able to decide the direction of our life without the "help" of the government placing us in a program. The problem that I think Rodricks struggles with is a problem of collective action. At the present time we benefit from the work of a handful of people in the military, Americorp and the Peace Corp. Why join these organizations when we're already benefiting from them? I don't have an answer to this problem unfortunately, but I don't think that Rodricks proposal would really solve it or the issue of my generation being too self centered. 

Militarization in MY Life

I finally heard back from my Dad about his military service. It was pretty cool to learn about, and I think my Dad was pretty excited to finally have his family interested in what he had done. (Side note: I come from a family of all girls, except for Dad.) So my Dad joined the Navy in 1966 at the time when the military was still on a draft system. He was 19 and taking time off from Michigan State. His Dad had served in WWII in the Army and said that in the course of his Military service the Navy men had seemed to have the easiest time. Living on a ship they always had somewhere warm to stay and food to eat. So my Dad joined the Navy. No sooner than he joined the Navy then his draft number was picked. So had he not joined, he would have been in the Army. He rose from Seamen Apprentice to Quarter Master Second Class in the three and a half years he spent in the Navy. (He couldn't remember why, but he got an early release) He spent time on a training ship near Philadelphia and in the Mediterranean. He talked about his time in the Navy almost reminiscent. He told me about adventures in London, Madrid and other European cities. He spoke fondly about the experiences that the Navy gave him. As we continued talking, with no prompting from me, he equated the military to video games. "It's like a video game now, no one on one anymore." In his eyes, he experienced a completely different military than what most experience today, and I couldn't agree more.  

On a second note, I've done horribly trying to recognize recruitment posters in my life. I saw one in Williams the other day and briefly thought about ripping it down and taking it to class, but thought better of it. It was for getting money for an education after serving in the military. I'm sure I saw other ads for the military, but again I didn't actually "see" them. I'm still struck by how often military things pass me by. It seems so normal to me. I'll try to do better this week spotting military ads, but no promises, since I really seem to be oblivious to them and militarization in general.  

The Army in the Marketplace: Recruiting an All-Volunteer Force by Beth Bailey

I found myself surprised by much of the article by Beth Bailey. Most likely because I'm pretty uneducated about the military. For example, I didn't know that the draft was in effect from the 1940's on, I didn't know that morning reveille had been abolished or that inspection standards had been relaxed. Probably because the only knowledge I have of the military comes from movies and television depicting the army, or what my friend Nate told me about his very short stint at The Naval Academy. (He quickly realized that Annapolis was not the place for him, and after making that decision... it took two weeks to deactivate, doesn't sound like the military is all that more relaxed to me) All of these things reinforced the idea that the military doesn't care about a persons individuality in my opinion. So I was surprised to learn all this, and what it means to me is that the advertisements and recruiting techniques employed by the military might be falling short today. Granted we live in a time of war and increasing displeasure with military action, but I feel like most of our generation does not know that military is slightly more relaxed or that any of these changes even happened. I know when all my male friends turned eighteen they had to sign up for selective service, an event that truly angered many (and I completely understand why... interesting that women still don't have to sign up). More recently talks of enacting another draft have even further angered our generation. Even though the military continues to run advertisements I think a majority of our generation is still anti-military. Watching the MTV Video Music Awards I was astounded to see the program was funded by the military, and then even more astounded to watch the military recruitment ads during commercial breaks. The military really is targeting the younger generation. MTV is the probably one of the most popular high school television shows and their funding just serves to amp up their image in the eyes of teenagers everywhere. The more I read for this course, the more I recognize these ads that before never would have made me think twice.
The other thing that I was thinking about as I read Bailey's article was my Dad. My Dad served in the Navy, at some point in the early 70's (I've never really asked him, which leads me to my next point) So I emailed him this morning to ask why he joined and what the political climate towards the military was at that point. I have however heard my dad tell stories about the navy. He never actually served in combat but he did get to experience Europe. He tells stories about spending time in Madrid, ALL the time. So I guess the Army advertisement about the "16-month tour of Europe" was pretty accurate.
The entire article just got me thinking about military advertisements and how prevelent they are in society, but that generally I don't even notice them. For the next week or so I'm going to try and keep track of how many times I see military ads in my daily life, I think it'll be interesting because up to this point, I really never stopped to think. I'll also update you all on my Dad's response.

Response to "Have You Played the War on Terror?" by Roger Stahl

The thing that struck me the most about Stahl's article is how popular culture and media are effecting the military. I realize that the military effects popular culture, like in many of the examples from Hall's article. The "burp gun" and "M16 marauder" that has authentic sounds to make war play seem more realistic where both influenced by the military. Stahl however talks about how popular culture and media have the ability to influence the military. "Toy manufacturers help in generating ideas for futuristic weapons. Hollywood screenwriters brainstorm about potential terrorist plots. Academics suggest strategies for urban combat and psychological operations. Gamemakers devise new methods for soldier training. Set designers help build virtual environments." (Stahl, 117) Before this article, I always thought of militarization as more of a one-way process that was affecting civilians rather than the reverse. I was struck by how often the military has adopted civilian video games to serve their purposes. Doom was just one of the many examples that Stahl sites. Modified the game becomes Marine Doom to train soldiers for war. It amazes me that video games are used as training modules for war. To me, it trivializes war. When you shoot an opponent in a video game, you might see a mist of blood or even just watch the body fall down. In real life however a gunshot and resulting death is slightly more graphic. While video games might serve a purpose in training for tactical reasons, I can't imagine that it makes it any easier for a soldier to pull the trigger in a combat situation. Most children have at some point played a video game with the object being to outlive your competitors and have become desensitized to the idea of death. In combat, unlike a video game, soldiers will experience actual death, and no video game can prepare someone for that.

Aside from the video games that Stahl discusses I thought it was interesting when he talked about the "CNN effect", where reporters divulge the militaries actions before they even happen. Potentially putting those soldiers in harms way. Again civilians are playing a part in the military. Now the military must guard against reporters having knowledge that could put them in harms way. Embedded journalists become a problem. In their quest to bring news of military action to news-hungry civilians the journalists put themselves and the military in danger by divulging to much information. In turn the military might have to change their plans or might even find themselves in a dangerous situation. War is brought to civilians in real-time.

Civilians watch war unfold on their televisions and almost simultaneously can re-create the scenes they see in their latest video games. Because the media is kept from showing coffins returning home or civilian casualties Americans can "play" the war on terror without actually understanding the consequences that war entails. As Stahl calls it, war becomes a "sanitized fantasy" for many.