I took personal offense to something said in Dan Rodrick's article about reinstating the draft. Right from the beginning he takes the stance that young people in America don't care about the outcome of the war and have more worries about who will win the next American Idol competition. As one of the young adults he is speaking about, I strongly disagree with his accusation.
I think the majority of Americans, including young adults, find the outcome of the war very important. It’s the constant arguing in the media and in politics over what a victory actually would be, and a saturation of bad news coming out of the middle east that leads us to daily discussions about TV rather than the war. Why should we talk about something depressing and unchanging? All we see on the news about the war these days (if anything at all) is the tragic bombing of a security checkpoint, followed by new totals of the American and Iraqi death toll. We're not able to discuss any victories, or anything good at all.
Dan's second article is even more insulting than the first. And the worst part is that he uses the insults as the reasons for his idealistic belief that we should basically force all young Americans to do good deeds, change the world, and restore America as a nation of good people with good will. He first generalizes everyone who opposes his 2-year mandatory service idea into libertarians who would no more force someone to serve in the armed forces or peace corps, than they would force someone to pay taxes.
Then he goes on to say that mandatory service in one of the three branches he outlined (armed forces, domestic assignment, foreign humanitarian assignment) would fix the alleged problems with our youth, including having become "increasingly myopic, wealth-obsessed, self-centered, cynical and clueless to essential concepts of loyalty and teamwork, community and commitment."
Wow...
Wait a minute, that sounds more like the morons that lied to get us into this war, destroyed the economy, and smoked pot and led the sexual revolution in the 70s... our parents. The very people he describes with those words are the people that run the businesses and politics of our time, NOT the young adults that plan on voting for other people to change all that. And those same people had the draft in the 70s. And they changed it... for a reason. Cumposory service should never be in effect unless the fate of the world or country depends on it.
The advancement of technology has required soldiers to become more professional and niche skilled. Two year service would rotate too many people through the system, putting a strain on the country's economy and armed service branches in general. Also, conventional warfare is less dependant on high numbers of troops. And considering how unacceptable it is for 4,000 soldiers to die in a war today a draft would just increase the amount of troops dying each day. And yes, his suggestion would do a great deal of good in our own country and in others and thus help us and help reinstate the U.S.'s reputation... a reputation soiled by the post baby boom generation now in control of the country.
Young people are naturally cynicall. It's a personal defense to prevent depression from how much our parents have screwed up the world. The young people of today have so much to make up for. But Dan wants us to start cleaning up their mess sooner. Well I don't think that's very fair. Even when not faced with compulsory service, I can garuntee that people my age would rather us pull out of Iraq than continue sacrificing Americans for a lost cause (assuming there was a just cause in the first place).
I don't see the rest of the world bending over backwards for other nations, so as priviledged and lucky as I am to be an American and lead the life I live, I don't plan on supporting any bill or push for forcing people to do what should be voluntary. If another Holocaust or world war breaks out then I will be in compete support of service, as terrified to die as I might be.
Sunday, September 28, 2008
Sunday, September 21, 2008
The American Foreign Legion?
I must say, I don't really get the fuss behind express citizenship for those who serve in the armed forces. Other countries have similar programs, and it provides benefits for both the United States as well as the foreigner that wants citizenship. The article plays devil's advocate by pointing out that this offer goes too far and cheapens the sacrifice and duty that the armed forces once stood for. But the development of an all-volunteer army has its consequences. While it may have worked fine during the years of the cold-war and post cold war peacetime forces, now that the U.S. is engaged in combat the forces have found themselves drained and dependent on reserve services.
It also doesn't help that the war is not popular. The army has become dependent on sales tactics to attract servicemen. Branding the military isn't easy, which is why experts were brought in when they initially went all-volunteer. I think the all-volunteer army was an inevitable part of the evolution of modern warfare. Like Nixon said, the threat of nuclear war has changed to face of the conventional battlefield. Skirmishes and small scale special forces dominate the physical battlefield. This in combination with intelligence gathering defines modern warfare.
I think the benefits of mandatory service are not unlike those which could just be obtained by volunteering to serve in the armed forces. The best reason I could see for mandatory service would simply be fairness. But as long as good wages and benefits remain, a volunteer service is the best way to go. It ensures that the majority of the members want to be there, or at least weren't forced into it (though it has been argued that the poor and unskilled are indirectly pushed toward service). Volunteer service also provides for more extensive training and professional soldiers. This means less casualties and mistakes on the battlefield.
It also doesn't help that the war is not popular. The army has become dependent on sales tactics to attract servicemen. Branding the military isn't easy, which is why experts were brought in when they initially went all-volunteer. I think the all-volunteer army was an inevitable part of the evolution of modern warfare. Like Nixon said, the threat of nuclear war has changed to face of the conventional battlefield. Skirmishes and small scale special forces dominate the physical battlefield. This in combination with intelligence gathering defines modern warfare.
I think the benefits of mandatory service are not unlike those which could just be obtained by volunteering to serve in the armed forces. The best reason I could see for mandatory service would simply be fairness. But as long as good wages and benefits remain, a volunteer service is the best way to go. It ensures that the majority of the members want to be there, or at least weren't forced into it (though it has been argued that the poor and unskilled are indirectly pushed toward service). Volunteer service also provides for more extensive training and professional soldiers. This means less casualties and mistakes on the battlefield.
Tuesday, September 16, 2008
From Your Bedroom to the Front Lines
Someday in the future an entire war may be fought from the comfort of one's home. Or at least... that's where the technology could be headed. The convergence of video games and the military is seen by many as an unholy marriage of home entertainment and world domination, but I choose to see it in a different light. Over the past twenty years video games have been the testing waters for remote operations for the army. It has also increasingly become the stage for training and simulations for soldiers.
The authenticity and realism of these games has allowed the armed forces to train soldiers better and help them be more prepared for what real combat is like. This means more efficient work and helps to ensure the safety of the troops in the field.
Stahl's writings speak to a slightly different note. The darker picture painted in his writings, however, are accurate. While war is still waged with guns and tanks, the major battlefield has shifted to that of deception and intelligence. And while the decrease in conventional warfare is good for citizens who might fall victim to collateral damage, the nature of this new battlefield makes the citizen a more direct target than in the past.
I find modern war both frightening and provacative. My curious nature and love of technology help me to see it in a more positive light. The major victories of the war on terror are known to very few. While the physical battle in Afghanistan went well, initially, it has since taken a turn for the worse. What remains are the triumphs of the economic shutdowns that were imposed on various funds and investments that would be used to wire and stow terrorist money. This new war of intelligence is a game that the U.S. can lead in, and I hope that with new government leadership we can revive the steadfast and resolute attitude that we had during the Cold War.
The authenticity and realism of these games has allowed the armed forces to train soldiers better and help them be more prepared for what real combat is like. This means more efficient work and helps to ensure the safety of the troops in the field.
Stahl's writings speak to a slightly different note. The darker picture painted in his writings, however, are accurate. While war is still waged with guns and tanks, the major battlefield has shifted to that of deception and intelligence. And while the decrease in conventional warfare is good for citizens who might fall victim to collateral damage, the nature of this new battlefield makes the citizen a more direct target than in the past.
I find modern war both frightening and provacative. My curious nature and love of technology help me to see it in a more positive light. The major victories of the war on terror are known to very few. While the physical battle in Afghanistan went well, initially, it has since taken a turn for the worse. What remains are the triumphs of the economic shutdowns that were imposed on various funds and investments that would be used to wire and stow terrorist money. This new war of intelligence is a game that the U.S. can lead in, and I hope that with new government leadership we can revive the steadfast and resolute attitude that we had during the Cold War.
Tuesday, September 9, 2008
Reprogramming Our Youth, One Child's Toychest at a Time
Karen Hall's essay, "False Witness: Combat Entertainment and Citizen Training in the United States" asserts several views about both the movie industry and its portrayal of the military as well as the brainwashing effect that military toys can have on children.
I tend to agree with her main points on the issue of movies and their effect on the opinion of the military in the minds of American citizens. The trauma of war can be such a horrific experience, many soldiers never wish to relive it. This leaves the public with a very narrow view of warfare; not to mention a commercialized one. Hall also delves into the psychological aspect of what she calls "false witness." Many war movies justify unfair and cruel acts on the enemy by portraying them as acts of revenge.
I think Hall touches on an important observation of the relationship between movies and reality. The trauma of watching a close friend or comrade get killed calls for closure and openness. But movies always show the soldiers suppress any semblance of such feelings, instead rallying to a cry for revenge and retaliation.
And all these movies which set up our nation's war story and control our opinion of the army are used by toy companies. Makers of various popular military action figures, vehicles and guns use war movie scenes either in advertisements or as still images on the case of the toy. All of this attracts kids to their product. If a child sees images of Rambo using a machine gun to spray endless rounds of ammunition against the enemy, they'll want the toy gun to emulate the hero they've been told to love. Hall also points out that imagination is sucked out of the use of the toy and replaced with imitation.
I had one disagreement with Hall's observation. She argues that these types of toys lead children to collect rather than play. While collecting can certainly be a part of some toys, based on my own childhood I would argue that collection was not the main focus of buying more toys. It was the ability to expand the storyline that could be made or provided and overall to enhance the level of play. But perhaps not all children play with these kinds of toys the way I did.
Overall, I thought Hall drew some very interesting relationships between the 'war narrative' set up by a movie and the transfer of that to toys for kids. But thus is capitalism. Sports are popular, so it sells games and movies. Comics are popular, so they do the same. The military is an equally popular genre of films and toys. The question is whether or not it has a negative impact on youth and what can be done about it.
I tend to agree with her main points on the issue of movies and their effect on the opinion of the military in the minds of American citizens. The trauma of war can be such a horrific experience, many soldiers never wish to relive it. This leaves the public with a very narrow view of warfare; not to mention a commercialized one. Hall also delves into the psychological aspect of what she calls "false witness." Many war movies justify unfair and cruel acts on the enemy by portraying them as acts of revenge.
I think Hall touches on an important observation of the relationship between movies and reality. The trauma of watching a close friend or comrade get killed calls for closure and openness. But movies always show the soldiers suppress any semblance of such feelings, instead rallying to a cry for revenge and retaliation.
And all these movies which set up our nation's war story and control our opinion of the army are used by toy companies. Makers of various popular military action figures, vehicles and guns use war movie scenes either in advertisements or as still images on the case of the toy. All of this attracts kids to their product. If a child sees images of Rambo using a machine gun to spray endless rounds of ammunition against the enemy, they'll want the toy gun to emulate the hero they've been told to love. Hall also points out that imagination is sucked out of the use of the toy and replaced with imitation.
I had one disagreement with Hall's observation. She argues that these types of toys lead children to collect rather than play. While collecting can certainly be a part of some toys, based on my own childhood I would argue that collection was not the main focus of buying more toys. It was the ability to expand the storyline that could be made or provided and overall to enhance the level of play. But perhaps not all children play with these kinds of toys the way I did.
Overall, I thought Hall drew some very interesting relationships between the 'war narrative' set up by a movie and the transfer of that to toys for kids. But thus is capitalism. Sports are popular, so it sells games and movies. Comics are popular, so they do the same. The military is an equally popular genre of films and toys. The question is whether or not it has a negative impact on youth and what can be done about it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)