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.