RECRUITING CHILDREN
INTO THE US MILITARY
The Pentagon's Child Recruiting Strategy
Gary Evans, MD
June
2008
With many thanks to Rick Jahnkow, Project
on Youth and Non-Military Opportunities.
_________________________________________________________________________________
INTRODUCTION
The human family consists for the most part of wonderfully ordinary
people, who work hard to care for themselves and their children. However,
there are a few people who aspire to positions of power, and then
work to use their authority to manipulate and control all the others.
This nation's teenage children are currently being tracked, targeted,
and sometimes captured by a global dominance military-industrial-media
complex under orders of an exceptionally callous neo-conservative
group now in control of the US government. The people in power today
systematically use armed services recruiters - motivated by rank and
bonus - as the agents of control and manipulation of US youth.
Parents of teens and preteens are seldom aware of how their children
are at increasing risk of being systematically targeted, manipulated
into recruiter offices, and psychological remodeled for use within
the war machine. Military planners, hungry for new recruits, commission
psychological research and carefully read neuro-psychiatric literature
as it pertains to adolescent behavior. They then apply that research
information to their recruitment efforts that focus on the vulnerability
of the teenage mind.
As the 9/11 wars continue and as the numbers of dead and disabled
young men and women climb, public doubt about the purpose and direction
of the conflict has evolved and grown. As a result, convincing new
potential recruits to enlist has become an increasingly difficult
task. The Pentagon addresses this recruitment problem by spending
thousands of millions of our tax dollars on programs designed to deceive,
seduce, and to capture our youth. Military recruiters have been granted
full access to our children at home, at school, and wherever else
they can be tracked. The Pentagon has invaded our movies, our televisions,
and our minds, and has invited our children to play violent, and damaging
video games while feeding them emotionally charged materials designed
to manipulate and reformat them into replacement soldiers.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
A RECENT HISTORY OF US MILITARY
RECRUITMENT
Ending the Draft
The Vietnam War was fought by a generation of young men whose teen
experiences were distorted by a persistent and disruptive force -
conscription. That constant threat helped fire the tremendous social
unrest that attended those war years. As the war came to its painful
end, Pentagon planners moved to eliminate future reliance on draftees.
The recommendation was tendered and Congress agreed to end the draft,
replacing it with an all volunteer armed services system.
Building and maintaining an all volunteer military during peacetime
worked reasonably well. The process during war however, has proven
to be problematic. After years of war and violent occupation in Afghanistan
and Iraq, public perception of military life has gradually soured.
And, as civilian jobs - albeit low paying for many - continue to be
available, the recruiting process has become increasingly difficult.
The Pentagon has responded by offering, or giving the appearance of
offering, a set of incentives to potential enlistees. Bait has since
included cash and promises (frequently unfulfilled) of job training,
educational funding, and future medical care.
Teenagers Increasingly Targeted
After recent Pentagon research revealed that the desire and intention
to enlist is highest among younger recruits (six in ten current US
soldiers entered the military as teenagers),[1,2,3]
a level of subtlety, or rather subterfuge has been employed to guide
teens toward recruiter offices. As one example of the many available:
the US Army sponsors a website labeled "eCybermission."
It offers "web-based science, math, and technology competition"
for 11, 12 , and 13 year olds, and the services of on-line uniformed
Army personnel "CyberGuides."[4]
Since 2002 the Pentagon has developed a massive teen database gleaned
from sources, including records obtained via the "No Child Left
Behind Act." That information is filed in JAMRS, the "Joint
Advertising and Marketing Research & Studies" system - a
giant Pentagon run, privately subcontracted (Equifax) database containing
contact and identification data on over thirty million 16-25 year
olds.[5]
Plummeting Numbers / Plummeting
Standards
Despite recent reports of an increasing rate of suicides among US
troops,[6] and despite news reports of
"stop-loss" troop recycling and declining troop moral, the
Pentagon's recent recruiting and retention report for 2007[7]
implies success. The facts underlying the statistics offered, however,
tell a different story: "The number of wavers granted to Army
recruits with criminal backgrounds [125,000] has grown about 65 percent
in the past three years...,"[8]
and the percentage of minimally qualified recruits has quadrupled
since 2002.[9]
Representative Martin T. Meechen, Chairman of the House Armed Services
Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight: "The data is crystal
clear; our armed forces are under incredible strain, and the only
way that they can fill their recent quotas is by lowering their standards."[8]
Recruitment Funding
Pentagon spending on recruitment has increased dramatically over
the past few years, approaching $4 billion by 2003.[10]
As of 2006, there were over 22,000 recruiters nationwide,[11]
charged with signing up between 180,000 and 200,000 new active duty
recruits,[10,11]
and approximately 120,000 new reservists per year.[11]
In 2000, the US House of Representatives determined that $6400 was
being spent to sign up each marine,[12]
and by 2005, the military spent approximately $16,000 in total promotional
costs to enlist each new recruit.[11,13]
Despite the enormous sums spent attempting to maintain an all volunteer
military during these times of growing anti-war sentiment, the armed
forces have been unable to meet new recruit sign-up quotas. There
is always a way, however, and here the balance sheets have been righted
by dropping ballast, also known as "standards," and by implementing
military contract fine-print: Executive Order #12728, dated 8/22/90
referring to US Code, Title 10, section 12305 and Title 3, section
301, better known as "Stop Loss," which allows troops to
be returned to battlefields again by delaying their removal from active
duty indefinitely. In this way, military statisticians have forced
the claim that recruitment quotas are being fulfilled.[14]
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
TARGETING THE ADOLESCENT
BRAIN
Adolescence has long been recognized as a time when impulsive and
risk-taking behaviors increase. As adolescence gives way to adulthood,
learning to gauge risk with greater precision gradually proceeds.
Modern neuroscience tools, including Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI)
and Positron Emission Tomography (PET) scanning techniques have now
shown that adolescent stereotypic behavior is based on a phase of
structural brain development.[15,16,17]
In a recent study,[15] multiple high-tech
scans were collated over time, and were combined with serial assessments
of neuro-developmental function. It was discovered that the adolescent
brain exists as a structurally and functionally distinct entity from
that found earlier in childhood, or later in adulthood. The adolescent
brain develops structurally enlarged, but functionally immature prefrontal
and limbic grey matter areas. Those structural features appear to
result in a change in balance between limbic reward and prefrontal
higher executive assessment functions, and helps to explain typical
adolescent behaviors of increased novelty and sensation, or thrill-seeking
on the one hand, and limited consequence analysis on the other. By
the early twenties, as the structurally enlarged areas decrease to
typically adult volumes, brain function settles into adult patterns.
These changes are accompanied by recognized adult thought processes
and behaviors.
It is during adolescence, when changes in brain structure and function
result in the characteristic behaviors of that age, that teens are
actively recruited toward and into the military. The techniques employed
by military recruiters directly target the unique functional brain
development characteristics of the adolescent; that targeting appears
to be purposeful.[18,19]
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
HIGH SCHOOLS AS "MARKETS"
"No Child Left Behind" - Section 9528
The Bush Administration wrote and signed into law the "No Child
Left Behind Act," January 8, 2002,20 with subsequent reauthorization
in 2007.[21] As is now widely known,
included in the 670 pages of that voluminous act - within section
9528 - is a provision enabling military recruiters to access high
school students' records, and to access the students themselves as
they attend high-school campuses throughout the country. Students
and/or their parents are offered the choice to "opt-out"
of this demand, but they must actively do so, requiring of course,
that they are first informed of this option. As will later be documented,
this is often not the case. If school districts otherwise fail to
provide military recruiters with the required information and access,
millions of dollars in federal funding for that district can be cut.
Military recruiter manuals then provide guidance on how to maximize
the effect of the law on targeted adolescents.[22]
Here are a few examples of advice given to recruiters:
School Recruiting Program [SRP] Handbook
(Excerpts)[22]
From section
1-4 c: "The objective of the SRP is to assist recruiters
with programs and services so they can effectively penetrate
the school market. The goal is school ownership that can only
lead to a greater number of Army enlistments. Recruiters must
first establish rapport in the schools. This is a basic step
in the sales process and a prerequisite to an effective school
program. Maintaining this rapport and establishing a good working
relationship is next. Once educators are convinced recruiters
have their students' best interests in mind the SRP can be effectively
implemented."
From section
2-4: "Some influential students such as the student president
or the captain of the football team may not enlist; however,
they can and will provide you with referrals who will enlist."
And from
section 5-1-f-4: "Don't forget the administrative staff....
Have something to give them (pen, calendar, cup, donuts, etc.)
and always remember secretary's week, with a card or flowers."
|
Using computers fed with socioeconomic census data, past recruiting
numbers, and other demographic information, recruiters target specific
schools where students are less likely to go on to college and are
more likely to sign up with the military. [23,24]
Then, school yearbooks, newspapers, and any other pertinent local
informational sources are scrutinized, allowing recruiters to simulate
familiarity and interest in a few of the more popular kids on campus.
As those kids are approached and befriended, others are attracted
to the social bait and, seeking approval, gather 'round.
Once a student swims anywhere near the hook, recruiter anglers use
every trick available.[11] Students are
phoned and written to without end, and are offered visions of a virtual
cornucopia of money, education, training, and adventure.[25,26,27]
All responses are, of course, tracked.[28]
ASVAB "Realize your strengths. Realize your
dreams."
The Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery (ASVAB)[29]
is a three hour test, offered to, and taken by nearly one
million high school students every year. It is placed before them
ostensibly as a helping hand - as a way to explore their potentials,
and to guide them toward appropriate career choices. The offer and
the test are scams.
Here is what the military tells the parents of teenage students in
this confidence game:
"The
ASVAB Career Exploration Program includes eight individual tests
covering verbal and math skills, mechanical knowledge, electronics,
and several other areas. It also produces three Career Exploration
Scores for Verbal Skills, Math Skills, and Science and Technical
Skills. These three scores serve as one of several pieces of
information about your child that can aid in the exploration
of a wide variety of career options."[30]
|
Recruiters, on the other hand, understand the ASVAB recruitment tool
quite well. From the Commander, Navy Recruiting Command, Policy and
Programs Division, 2002 - Recruiting Manual:
"The
ASVAB is used by the Armed Forces for recruiting purposes…
The ASVAB's ability for determining civilian job skills has
not yet been proven."[31]
|
Because the ASVAB is exempt from the provisions of the Family Educational
Rights and Privacy Act of 1974, students are given the test and information
thereby gleaned is released to the military all without parental consent.[32]
Furthermore, military recruiters are free, at the option of school
administrators, to contact test takers - even if the student, or their
parents opted-out of Section 9528 of the No Child Left Behind Act.[27,32]
Exam information is then forwarded to the DoD JAMRS database for
further analysis.[5,31]
The JAMRS Database
In 2002, the Pentagon joined forces with the corporate database industry
and began gathering, organizing and analyzing personal information
on the military's "market" of teens and their families.
The Joint Advertising and Marketing Research & Studies (JAMRS)
database now includes the records of over thirty million US 16 - 25
year olds.[5]
As families soon discovered they were unable to control the records
collected on them, an ACLU lawsuit was brought against Secretary of
Defense Donald Rumsfeld, Deputy Under-Secretary of Defense David Chu,
and JAMRS Program Manager Matt Boehmer in April 2006.[33]
It was settled a few months later, and became effective January, 2007,
specifying that families have the power to opt-out of the database.[34]
To date, as both the database and the option to opt-out of it is known
to only a handful of families, opt-in remains the rule.
A Department of Defense survey taken November 2004, found that "only
25 percent of parents would recommend military service to their children,
down from 42 percent in August 2003."[35]
The Pentagon responded with a media campaign featuring faux-parents
and their faux-children discussing enlistment in a positive light.[36]
In addition, the Pentagon tasked JAMRS with studying "influencers,"
- parents, teachers, clergy, and the like - in the hope of minimizing
and/or neutralizing their interference.[5]
JROTC
The "Junior Reserve Officers' Training Corps" system was
created through the National Defense Act of 1916. It offers high schools
federal subsidies in the form of funding, equipment, and supplies,[37,38]
which appear to be a good deal for cash-strapped school districts.
In fact, this too good to be true deal turns out to be - just that.
After a short time, schools discover they have ended up on the red
side of the balance sheet - paying out more than they receive. Hidden
costs include additional insurance coverage, new facilities construction
and maintenance, a portion of JROTC instructors' salaries, benefits,
taxes, etc. In short, school districts and the children they support
are ripped-off by the program.[39]
In exchange for the faux-benefits offered, school districts must
allow retired military personnel to act as instructors, and they must
allow instructors to offer students a course of training that is authorized
by the military, as opposed to local school boards.[37,38]
Classes can be taught by either accredited or non-accredited instructors,
and reading and study materials have been found to include racist
versions of history, and which stress a military approach to social
and political change.[37]
JROTC courses are now offered in over 3000 high schools as of June
2003,[40] and bend the minds of over
500,000 teenage children toward the military.[39]
Former United States Secretary of Defense William Cohen described
the JROTC program as: "one of the best recruitment programs we
could have."[39] And, true enough,
forty percent of those entering the program go on to enlist.[38]
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
THINGS RECRUITS
& RECRUITERS PROMISE
Recruits and the Military Contract
A promise is a promise, unless it is offered by a military recruiter.
After a recruit is promised the moon, they are asked to sign on the
dotted line, most often missing the fine print:
"Laws and regulations that govern military personnel may
change without notice to me. Such changes may affect my status,
pay, allowances, benefits, and responsibilities as a member
of the Armed Forces REGARDLESS of the provisions of this enlistment/reenlistment
document."[41]
|
In other words, recruits may be promised specific training and assignments,
lofty jobs, or anything at all. The only contract made - despite any
oral or written promise - is that the recruit will serve under the
Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)[42]
rather than under civilian Constitutional law until full and final
discharge is allowed (sans "Stop-Loss"). Any other statements,
assurances, or promises - written or otherwise, do not apply.
The Mirage of Jobs and College Funding
Congress and the Department of Defense have long understood that
as civilian jobs and educational opportunities decline, the military
option becomes more attractive to potential recruits. Military Recruiters
- and a vast expanse of advertisement copy - hammer the idea home
that joining the military and serving it for a few years will open
to an oasis of educational and job opportunities. The oasis is a mirage.
A typical recruitment advertisement reads: "Join the Army and
earn up to $70,000 for college."[27]
The truth is, nearly all enlistees join the Montgomery GI Bill on
entering the military, but only one in twenty qualify for the higher
Army College Fund or Navy College Fund benefits.[43]
In fact thirty percent of those joining the program receive nothing
from it,[44] and the rest, nearly always
receive only a fraction of the benefits promised.[43,45]
Conditions:
o In order to be allowed entry into any of the college fund
programs, recruits must first pay $100 per month for the first
twelve months of service. That $1200 is fully non-refundable. [44,46]
o A full honorable discharge from the military is required.[27,46]
One in four fail to achieve that condition.[27]
o For those who do achieve full honorable discharges, the payout
is tricky: it is made over a total of no more than 36 months
of educational expenditure (9 month academic year x 4 years
= 36 months). If, as is typical, a veteran is unable to take
full course loads over each of those 36 months, the payout is
less, and will still be terminated after a total of 36 months
in any case. So, for example, if a war-traumatized veteran is
able to maintain only a one-half coursework load, the total
payout would be - at a maximum - only one-half of that originally
promised.[47] Most veterans (56%)
using the Montgomery GI Bill begin by attending community colleges
or vocational schools spread out over time, and therefore receive
only a fraction of the maximum promised for full time, full
coursework study.[47]
o The cost of education has continually increased while educational
benefits have increased less rapidly. As benefits lag further
and further behind the inflation curve, the value of the original
promise is equally degraded with time.[47]
|
In summary, recruits rarely collect on the military's "big print"
promise to provide significant educational funding.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
RECRUITMENT TOOLBOX:
Movies, Toys, TV, &
Computer Games
Blackhawk Helicopters on High School
Campuses
As US families pushed back against the slogans "Be All You Can
Be," and "An Army of One," and as potential new recruits
increasingly said "no" to joining up, military planners
moved new people into command chairs, ramped up their efforts, crafted
new slogans, and basically pulled out the stops.[27]
Fully camo'ed military recruiters now land Blackhawk helicopter warships
on elementary, middle and high school campuses around the country,
and issue promises of fun, excitement, and glory to the overwhelmed
kids.
Children as young as 6-8 years old
are sometimes invited to these landing events, where they are rewarded
with tiny black (hawk) footballs after they gather close around recruiters.
[48,49]
________________________________
Photo Credit: Kent Porter / The Press Democrat
18-Wheeler "Recruiting Vans," on high
school campuses
 The
US Army, in a well funded effort to recruit children, has decked out
seven "Cinema Vans" with multiple slide projectors, viewing
screens, and rock-climbing walls. Another 18-wheeler, the "Army
Adventure Van," features a helicopter simulator, an M-1 Tank
simulator, and an M16 Machine-gun simulator, allowing high school
kids to practice and to visualize cutting enemies to pieces. Other
vehicles include a "Nuclear Power Van," an "America's
Sea Power Van," etc. Together, these propaganda shows on 18 wheels
visit nearly 400,000 of America's children each year.[50]
"'The vans zero in on our target market, and that's in high
schools,' explained Fred Zinchiak, Public Affairs Specialist in the
Sacramento Army Recruiting Battalion."[50]
The targeted markets - this nation's teenagers - are offered a vision
of military life as being sexy and exciting. The reality of post traumatic
stress disorder, major depression, and traumatic brain injury suffered
by over one-third of a million troops returning from the current wars
in Iraq and Afghanistan [51] is ignored.
Recruitment via Television
 As
of March 2008, over 11,000 schools have contracted with "Channel
One," an organization which promises to provide schools with
free television equipment and wiring in exchange for a mandatory daily
viewing of the programs produced, edited, and broadcast by them.
The twelve minute programs, aired daily, are interspersed with two
minutes of "corporate sponsorship" messages, half of which
are paid for by US taxpayers c/o the Department of Defense, and in
the form of military recruitment pitches to the captive children who
are required to watch.[27]
From the Channel One Network website: "Nearly 30 percent of
all American teens are in classrooms that show Channel One News."
In other words, over six million middle and high school students are
presently forced to receive daily military recruiter pitches during
classroom time.[52,53,54]
Recruitment via Hollywood Movies
The Pentagon has had a cozy relationship with the entertainment industry
for many years, providing open door base access, material, and consultation
to movie studios… for a price.[55]
"We may think that the content of American movies is free from
government interference, but in fact, the Pentagon has been telling
filmmakers what to say - and what not to say --- for decades. It's
Hollywood's dirtiest little secret."[56]
It is now widely known that the Pentagon has influenced film producers
and studios for years - trading access to military resources for censorship
rights. Under authority of the Office of the Assistant Secretary of
Defense for Public Affairs, the Pentagon's film liaison office trades
script changes - acceptable to the brass - with access to otherwise
impossibly expensive military material, locations, and expertise.
In the end, we the taxpayers pay for our own propagandizing. Recent
movies that were given a "hand" by the Pentagon include:
"Stripes," "Black Hawk Down," "Pearl Harbor,"
"Top Gun," "The Great Santini," "The Right
Stuff", "Apollo 13," and many others.[56,57]
From David Robb's book "Operation Hollywood: "… the
Pentagon is quite candid about why it provides this assistance to
Hollywood. According to the army's own handbook, A Producer's guide
to U.S. Army Cooperation with the Entertainment Industry, this collaboration
must 'aid in the recruiting and retention of personnel.'"[56]
Recruitment via Video Gaming
The Pentagon has vigorously supported development of PC war game
software after discovering their use as both recruitment and as military
training vehicles. Take, for example, the Microsoft X-Box game "Close
Combat: First to Fight" - created by and for the military, but
soon ported directly to "T" for Teens.[57]
 Another
"success" story, in terms of the number of teens and young
adults participating, is the US Army's video game project "America's
Army," accessed by several million "players" as of
2007.[58] "America's Army"
is a highly graphic, fast paced and graphically violent battle simulation
for youthful players. The army states that the game is for growing
adults, but it is freely available on the Internet without age restriction
and is widely distributed to children.[59]
It has been argued that "America's Army" is blatant government
propaganda pitched to those who are least able to understand the effects
of exposure to its various subtle and not-so-subtle messages.[60]
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
VIOLENT VIDEO / VIDEO GAMING
IS HARMFUL TO CHILDREN
Despite the overwhelming raft of data documenting ill effects in
children and adolescents exposed to violent video and video games,
the military services continue to support delivery of those images
and experiences to children, seen only as potential future recruits.[57]
From the Committee on Public Education of the American
Academy of Pediatrics:
"The American Academy of Pediatrics recognizes exposure to violence
in media, including television, movies, music, and video games as
a significant risk to the health of children and adolescents. Extensive
research evidence indicates that media violence can contribute to
aggressive behavior, desensitization to violence, nightmares, and
fear of being harmed. Pediatricians should assess their patients'
level of media exposure and intervene on media-related health risks.
Pediatricians and other child health care providers can advocate for
a safer media environment for children by encouraging media literacy,
more thoughtful and proactive use of media by children and their parents,
more responsible portrayal of violence by media producers, and more
useful and effective media ratings."[61]
From the American Academy of Child & Adolescent
Psychiatry:
"Studies of children exposed to violence have shown that they
can become: "immune" or numb to the horror of violence,
imitate the violence they see, and show more aggressive behavior with
greater exposure to violence. Some children accept violence as a way
to handle problems. Studies have also shown that the more realistic
and repeated the exposure to violence, the greater the impact on children.
In addition, children with emotional, behavioral and learning problems
may be more influenced by violent images.
"Youth who exposed themselves to greater amounts of video game
violence saw the world as a more hostile place, were more hostile
themselves, got into arguments with teachers more frequently, were
more likely to be involved in physical fights, and performed more
poorly in school. Video game violence exposure was a significant predictor
of physical fights even when respondent sex, hostility level, and
weekly amount of game play were statistically controlled."[62]
Summary of the Evidence: Exposure to violent video, whether in the
form of video games, television, or theater movies is linked to, and
causal of, increases in aggressive cognition, affect and behavior.[63,64,65,66,67,68,69]
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
STUDENTS, PARENTS, SCHOOLS
AND COMMUNITIES RESPOND
Here is a small sampling of student, parent, school, and community
responses to predatory military recruiters and the tactics they employ:
VALLEJO, CA. SCHOOL BOARD ADDRESSES THE OPT-OUT
CLAUSE
2008 - Vallejo, California: The Vallejo School Board voted to end
the practice of providing military recruiters with complete and unrestricted
access to student information. District spokesman Jason Hodge: "This
action brings the school district into compliance with the No Child
Left Behind Act which requires parents and students be given the option
to 'opt out' of having military recruiters gain access to their personal
information."[70]
BERKELEY, CA: CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION - UNWELCOME
RECRUITERS
2008 - Berkeley, California: The Berkeley City Council passed a resolution
that initially stated Marine recruiters were "uninvited and unwelcome
intruders." The council later issued a clarification, stating
that the recruiting center retains the legal right to exist, but telegraphed
to citizens that vigorous protesting of the center's existence is
also a protected right.[71]
SEATTLE'S GARFIELD HIGH SCHOOL PTA: "NO"
TO RECRUITERS
2005 - Seattle, Washington: The Garfield High School PTA voted to
adopt a resolution stating in part: "public schools are not a
place for military recruiters."[72]
NATIONAL PTA POSITION: PROTECT STUDENTS' PRIVACY
2005 - "National PTA seeks to increase awareness and community
sensitivity about the collection and dissemination of information
regarding students and believes that such records should respect the
rights to privacy and be relevant to a child's education.
"National PTA will continue to support legislation and policies
[that] would change current law by providing for an 'opt in' policy
where interested students and families can instead choose to request
contact from military recruiters. Parents and students deserve to
know who has their information, and parents should be involved in
the important decision to enlist in military service."[73]
HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS TAKE ACTION AGAINST THE ASVAB
SCAM
2006 - Lindale, Georgia: Two seventeen year old Pepperell High School
students confronted recruiters, the school board, and the school's
administration, who had insisted students were compelled under law
to take the ASVAB military (recruiting tool) test. As the result of
their ad-hoc plan to distribute anti-ASVAB flyers to their fellow
students and despite the argumentative efforts of local recruiters,
an estimated two-thirds of the eligible students present refused to
be "tested."[74]
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
CONCLUSION
Military recruiters have been given legal authority to openly recruit
adolescents on high school campuses, and tacit authority to recruit
both adolescents and younger children through more subtle means. Techniques
employed include those that are known to be harmful to children, including
repeated exposure to violent games and images. Recruiters rely on
the immature status of their prey to capture them with false promises,
and subterfuge. Military recruitment of children must be understood
for what it is: predatory.
The highest calling of any society is to protect its young from harm.
Our society is failing to heed this call.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
FOR MORE INFORMATION (in alphabetical
order):
American Friends Service Committee:
Youth & Militarism
http://www.afsc.org/youthmil/default.htm
Code Pink: Women for Peace
http://www.afsc.org/youthmil/default.htm
Committee Opposed to Militarism
and the Draft
http://www.comdsd.org/
National
Network Opposing Militarism In Our Schools
http://www.nnomy.org/joomla/index.php
Project on Youth and Non-Military
Opportunities
http://www.projectyano.org/
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
OPT-OUT FORMS:
Further information regarding NCLB and FERPA (Family Educational
Rights and Privacy Act of 1974):
http://www.aclufl.org/issues/privacy/NCLBFAQFINAL.pdf
____________________________
REFERENCES
1. Population Representation in the Military Services, Fiscal Year
2004; Table A-1: DoD new recruits ages 16 - 17 = 22.22%, age 18 =
23.53, age 19 = 14.48 (tot = 60.23%): http://www.defenselink.mil/prhome/poprep2004/download/2004report.pdf,
http://www.defenselink.mil/prhome/poprep2004/download/2004appendices.pdf
2. "America's Child Soldier Problem"; In These Times, May
17, 2007:
http://www.inthesetimes.com/article/3199/americas_child_soldier_problem/
3. "Pentagon's Teen Recruiting Methods Would Make Tobacco Companies
Proud":
http://www.alternet.org/story/51889/
4. US Army's e-Cybermission Website:
http://www.ecybermission.com/base_public.cfm?url=38500C5F40530E011C27501A1D4A564C
5. DoD's "Joint Advertising Market Research & Studies"
database website:
www.jamrs.org
6. "'Epidemic' of military suicides investigated," The
Seattle Times, Nov. 17, 2007:
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2004019358_aliciacol17.html
7. "DoD Announces Recruiting and Retention Numbers for FY2007,"
U.S. Department of Defense, News Release No. 1202-07, Oct. 10, 2007:
http://www.defenselink.mil/releases/release.aspx?releaseid=11398
8. "Army Giving More Waivers in Recruiting," New York Times,
Feb. 14, 2007:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/14/us/14military.html
9. "Recruiters struggle to find an Army," The Seattle Times,
Nov. 12, 2007:
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2004008540_recruit12.html
10. "MILITARY RECRUITING: DOD Needs to Establish Objectives
and Measures to Better Evaluate Advertising's Effectiveness,"
GAO 03-1005:
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d031005.pdf
11. "MILITARY RECRUITING: DOD and Services Need Better Data
to Enhance Visibility over Recruiter Irregularities," GAO 06-0846,
Aug. 2006:
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d06846.pdf
12. Hearings On National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2001-H.R. 4205 and Oversight of Previously Authorized Programs Before
the Committee On Armed Services - House of Representatives, 106 Congress,
2nd Session, Full Committee Hearings on Authorization and Oversight;
Feb. 10, 2000:
http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/security/has041000.000/has041000_0f.htm
13. "Army Recruiters Take Show On Road," CBS News, Mar.
16, 2005:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/03/16/eveningnews/printable681055.shtml
14. "MILITARY PERSONNEL: Preliminary Observations on Recruiting
and Retention Issues within the U.S. Armed Forces," GAO 05-419t,
released March 16, 2005:
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d05419t.pdf
15. Article: "The Teen Brain: Insights from Neuroimaging"
by Jay N. Giedd, MD (Nat. Institute of Mental Health); Journal of
Adolescent Health, Volume 42, Issue 4, April 2008
16. Editorial: "Adolescent Brain Development: Forging New Links?"
by Elizabeth R. McAnarney, MD; Journal of Adolescent Health, Volume
42, Issue 4, April 2008
17. "In vivo evidence for post-adolescent brain maturation in
frontal and striatal regions"; Nature Neuroscience 2, 859 - 861,
1999: doi:10.1038/13154:
http://www.nature.com/neuro/journal/v2/n10/full/nn1099_859.html
18. Re: military recruitment and sensation-seeking propensities and
risk-taking propensities; National Research Council. Evaluating Military
Advertising and Recruiting: Theory and Methodology. Committee on the
Youth Population and Military Recruitment-Phase II. Paul R. Sackett
and Anne S., pg. 25:
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10867
19. "Attitudes, Aptitudes, and Aspirations of American Youth:
Implications for Military Recruitment":
http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10478&page=R1
20. NCLB of 2001, signed 1/8/02 (Contained in § 9528 of the
ESEA (20 U.S.C. § 7908), as amended by the No Child Left Behind
Act of 2001 (P.L. No. 107-110), and in 10 U.S.C. § 503, as amended
by 544 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2002
(P.L. No. 107-107):
http://www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/107-110.pdf
21. NCLB Reauthorization 2007:
http://www.ed.gov/nclb/overview/intro/reauth/index.html
22. United States Army Recruiting Command: USAREC Pamphlet 350-13;
2004:
http://www.nodraftnoway.org/public_html/USAREC%20Pam%20350-13%2020040901.pdf
23. "Military Recruits by High School, Zip Code, Community,
State," Bulletin, National Priorities Project, Nov. 1, 2005:
http://www.uslaboragainstwar.org/article.php?id=9492
24. Pentagon Creating Student Database, Washington Post, June 23,
2005:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/22/AR2005062202305.html
25. "Army Offers $40K Recruiting Bonus to H.S. Grads,"
NPR, Feb. 5, 2008:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=18710386
26. "Earn Money For College" (US Navy):
http://www.navy.com/benefits/education/earnmoney/
27. "Army of None," David Solnit & Aimee Allison, Seven
Stories Press, 2007
28. "Modeling the Individual Enlistment Decision: Final Study
Report" (June, 1999); US Army Research Institute for the Behavioral
and Social Sciences:
http://stinet.dtic.mil/oai/oai?verb=getRecord&metadataPrefix=html&identifier=ADA364946
29. The ASVAB Program:
http://www.asvabprogram.com/
30. "Parent Fact Sheet" from the ASVAB program website:
http://www.asvabprogram.com/downloads/ASVAB_factsheet-parents.pdf
31. Navy Recruiting Manual 1130.8F, pg 2-59 (2I-2-5a):
http://usmilitary.about.com/od/navyregs/p/usmilitary.about.com/library/pdf/navrecruit.pdf
32. ASVAB Counselor Manual; Nov. 2005, pg. 13:
http://www.asvabprogram.com/downloads/asvab_counselor_manual.pdf
33. ACLU Complaint/Lawsuit re: JAMRS:
http://www.nyclu.org/files/hanson_v_rumsfeld_complaint_042406.pdf
34. DoD's Answer to ACLU - Revised JAMRS Plan, Jan. 9, 2007:
http://www.nyclu.org/files/jamrs_revised_rules_notice_0109007.pdf
35. "Growing Problem for Military Recruiters: Parents,"
New York Times, June 3, 2005:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/03/nyregion/03recruit.html?oref=login
36. "Army, Marine recruiters shift focus to wary parents,"
USA Today, Apr. 4, 2005:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-04-04-recruiters-parents_x.htm
37. "Making Soldiers in the Public Schools," American Friends
Service Committee, 1995:
http://www.afsc.org/youthmil/militarism-in-schools/msitps.pdf
38. "Recruiting the Class of 2005"; Mother Jones, Jan-Feb,
2002:
http://motherjones.com/news/feature/2002/01/rotc.html
39. "Trading Books for Soldiers: The True Cost of JROTC,"
Philip Clark; American Friends Service Committee; 2000: Summary available
at:
http://web.archive.org/web/20000816192857/www.afsc.org/youthmil/html/issues/schools/jrotcost.htm
40. "Feeding the military machine: JROTC expansion and inner-city
academies mark recruiting incursion into U.S. public school classrooms,
critics say"; Mar. 28, 2003, National Catholic Reporter:
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1141/is_21_39/ai_99849547
41. Enlistment Contract: DD FORM 4/3, Oct 2007, page 2, section C.
9(b):
www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/infomgt/forms/eforms/dd0004.pdf
42. Uniform Code of Military Justice Legislative History (and general
information):
http://www.loc.gov/rr/frd/Military_Law/UCMJ_LHP.html
43. "Joining the Military is Hazardous to Your Education":
http://www.objector.org/before-you-enlist/gi-bill.html
44. "Lawmakers Urge GI Bill Extension," Military.com website,
May 9, 2007,
re: 30% of veterans cannot or do not use benefits:
http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,135109,00.html
45. "Why aren't military vets going to college?," Orange
County Register, Mar. 10, 2008:
http://www.ocregister.com/news/veterans-college-state-1995807-people-military
46. US Dept. of Vet. Affairs, Montgomergy GI Bill - CH30 Pamphlet
(honorable discharge required):
http://www.gibill.va.gov/pamphlets/CH30/CH30_Pamphlet_General.htm;
For the entire program, see US Dept. of Veterans Affairs, GI Bill
Website:
http://www.gibill.va.gov/GI_Bill_Info/benefits.htm
47. "GI Bill falling short of college tuition costs," Boston
Globe, Feb. 10, 2008:
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2008/02/10/gi_bill_falling_short_of_college_tuition_costs/
48. "Hanna grad flies Blackhawk to school," Sonoma Index-Tribune,
Mar. 20, 2008:
http://www.sonomanews.com/articles/2008/03/21/news/doc47df124d179b9525933769.txt
49. "Black Hawk touches down at schools," Press Democrat,
Mar. 15, 2008:
http://www1.pressdemocrat.com/article/20080315/NEWS/803150397/1033/NEWS&template=kart
50. "Mobile Recruiting 2001":
http://www.objector.org/awol/mobile.html
51. "One In Five Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans Suffer from PTSD
or Major Depression"; RAND Corp., Apr. 17, 2008 News Release:
http://rand.org/news/press/2008/04/17/
52. "Why Go to College, When You Can be Cannon Fodder?,"
Counterpunch, Feb. 17, 2005: http://www.counterpunch.org/whitehurst02172005.html
53. "Fast Facts," Channel One News website:
http://www.channelonenetwork.com/corporate/fast_facts.html
54. "FAQS," Channel One News website:
http://www.channelonenetwork.com/corporate/faqs.html
55. "The Pentagon Goes Hollywood," Time Magazine, November
24, 1986:
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,962933,00.html
56. "Operation Hollywood: How the Pentagon Shapes and Censors
the Movies", David Robb, 2004; "Operation Hollywood"
author David Robb interview here:
http://www.motherjones.com/news/qa/2004/09/09_403.html
57. "The Complex," Nick Turse; Henry Hold & Co., New
York (2008); ppg. 115-117
58. "Gamers Downloading America's Army," Jan. 12, 2007:
http://www.voanews.com/english/archive/2007-01/2007-01-12-voa35.cfm
59. US Army's "Official Army Game" website:
http://www.americasarmy.com/
60. "Army's War Game Recruits Kids" Joan Ryan; SF Chronicle,
(Orig. pub. Sept. 24, 2004):
http://www.twincitiesvfp.org/army_09_11_04.htm
61. "Media Violence," American Academy of Pediatrics, Policy
Statement, Pediatrics, Vol. 108#5, Nov. 2001, pp.1222-1226:
http://aappolicy.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/pediatrics;108/5/1222
62. "Children and Video Games: Playing with Violence,"
American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, Facts for Families:
No. 91:
http://www.aacap.org/cs/root/facts_for_families/children_and_video_games_playing_with_violence;
also No. 13, "Children and TV Violence":
http://www.aacap.org/cs/root/facts_for_families/children_and_tv_violence
63. "An update on the effects of playing violent video games,"
Anderson CA; Journal of Adolescence, 2004; 27: 113-122
64. "The Effects of Violent Video Game Habits on Adolescent
Aggressive Attitudes and Behaviors," Lynch, Paul J.; University
of Oklahoma Medical School; Gentile, Douglas A., National Institute
on Media and the Family; Olson, Abbie A., University of Minnesota;
van Brederode, Tara M., University of Minnesota Institute of Child
Development (Paper presented at the Biennial meeting of the Society
for Research in Child Development (Minneapolis, MN April 19-22, 2001)
65. "Short term and long term effects of violent media on aggression
in children and adults," Bushman BJ, Huesmann R.; Arch Pediatr
Adolesce Med., 2006; 160:348-352.
66. "Television and adolescent aggressiveness," Chaffee
SH. In: Comstock GA, Rubinstein EA eds. "Television and social
behavior: a technical report to the Surgeon General's Scientific Advisory
Committee on Television and Social Behavior," Vol. 3. Television
and adolescent aggressiveness (DHEW Publication No. HSM 72-9058).
Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1972; pp. 1-34).
67. "Deciding to defect: the effects of video game violence
on cooperative behavior," Sheese BE, Graziano WG.; Psychol Science,
2005; 16:354-357.
68. "The effects of violent video game habits on adolescent
hostility, aggressive behaviors, and school performance," Gentile
DA, Lynch, PJ, Linder JR, Walsh DA; Journal of Adolescence, 2004;
27; 5-22
69. "Exposure to violent video games increases automatic aggressiveness,"
Uhlmann, E, Swanson J.. J.Adolescence, 2004; 27:41-52
70. "Vallejo School District Votes To Shut Out Military Recruiters,"
NBC.com, March 20, 2008:
http://www.nbc11.com/newsarchive/15655946/detail.html
71. "The Military vs. Berkeley," Newsweek, Feb. 13, 2008:
http://www.newsweek.com/id/110911
72. "Rift Over Recruiting At Public High School," Christian
Science Monitor, May 18, 2005:
http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0518/p02s01-ussc.html
73. "Military Recruitment in Schools," Military recruitment
in schools and DOD database information, National PTA, August 2, 2005:
www.pta.org/documents/military.pdf
74. "Teens Frustrate Military Recruiter's ASVAB Scam,"
Antiwar.com, Nov. 24, 2006:
http://www.antiwar.com/orig/horton.php?articleid=10055
________________________________________________________________
Please feel free to copy and distribute this document for non-commercial
use.
|
