View from the Loft

More on the Civilian Reserve Corps

Thanks to a little sleuthing on my spouse's part, more has come to light about the Civilian Reserve Corps that Bush alluded to in his SOTU address (warning: pdf), and about which I've already written.

Bush's first mention of expanding the use of civilian volunteers that I can find was on May 18, 2005 according to the pdf link above:

We will also work to expand our use of civilian volunteers from outside our government, who have the right skills and are willing to serve in these missions.

And according to the State Department's Office of the Coordinator for Reconstruction and Stabilization, Bush has requested $25 million to establish a Civilian Reserve Corps.

In the comments of my last post on this topic, Hannah points to a Democracy Now interview with Jeremy Scahill of The Nation in which Scahill speculates that the Civilian Reserve Corps is a way to expand the use of private contractors like Blackwell, Halliburton, and KBR. That thought occurred to me as well, and I have no doubt that that is exactly the direction BushCo wants to take us in. They want to privatize everything else, after all; why not the military as well? See this article by Scahill, on the vast size of our mercenary army, which, as Scahill points out, has brought about largely done without the knowledge or input of American citizens--or the oversight of Congress.

In fact, the government document I linked to above does mention contractors, but as one of three components of civilian volunteers:

• First Responders, direct hires that would include both active and standby response corps
• Civilian Reserve Corps, which would "become Federal R & S [Reconstruction and Stiblization] hires when mobilized" and which would deploy for one year and serve in such capacities as "police, rule of law, public services, civil administration, etc."
• "Global Skills Network," which would be private contractors and NGOs; contracts would be pre-existing and personnel might be used for years.

The document goes on to ask "Why a Civilian Reserve?" and gives us some answers:

• the reserve would complement the government's civilian agency capacity
• it would have " 'just in time' surge capability" and would thus be more cost effective than adding permanent staff
• "strong US capacity will leverage parallel international and multilateral capacity," whatever that means
• "contracting networks pose reliability and command/control issues"
• civilian personnel would allow the military to phase down

Elsewhere the document suggests that the short-term use of the Civilian Reservists would be followed by the use of contract personnel.

The Civilian Reserve Corps would guarantee a volunteer the right to return to his or her job after being called up. And here's a plus (for the government): there would be an "enforceable obligation" to train and be deployed.

There is also an implication that contractors would be hired to oversee and direct such a program. Contractors, you see, can't do that with US Government employees, and thus the "need" for civilian volunteers.

The document lists the challenges of implementing the Civilian Reserve Corps, including:

• concerns from Iraq experience--personnel, contracts
• "reserve" name and functions problematic--creation of civilian capacity suggests plan to use it [ed. ya think??]--fear of pre-emptive planning and long occupation
• unlikely to garner sympathy for civilian reserves--business lobby unlikely to support re-employment rights

So what are we to make of this?

One thing that comes to mind is that the government would have in place the infrastructure and logistics to institute a skills draft. There isn't much support for a draft of any kind right now, so this would be one way to get everything in place without actually conscripting people.

But the Civilian Reserve Corps is just one piece of the puzzle. The other thing to look at here is the role of contractors in future military engagements, how that relates to a Civilian Reserve Corps, and how these different civilian branches support each other. It sounds like what the government is aiming for is a "surge capacity" for short-notice, short-term civilian personnel who would be overseen by private contractors and eventually replaced by contracted personnel.

In any case, the increasing use of companies like Blackwater should worry us all. From the Scahill article:

From Iraq and Afghanistan to the hurricane-ravaged streets of New Orleans to meetings with Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger about responding to disasters in California, Blackwater now envisions itself as the FedEx of defense and homeland security operations. Such power in the hands of one company, run by a neo-crusader bankroller of the president, embodies the "military-industrial complex" President Eisenhower warned against in 1961.

It's something that should scare the living hell out of all of us.

That Civilian Reserve Corps thing

Did anybody else experience an appalled sense of impending horror upon hearing this in Bush's speech?

A second task we can take on together is to design and establish a volunteer Civilian Reserve Corps. Such a corps would function much like our military reserve. It would ease the burden on the armed forces by allowing us to hire civilians with critical skills to serve on missions abroad when America needs them. It would give people across America who do not wear the uniform a chance to serve in the defining struggle of our time.

Let me tell you, that gave me a severe case of the willies.

I see that Arthur Silber noticed this as well, and promises to write more on the topic. He is one of the few to have taken notice. But Bush already foreshadowed this with his speech on the "surge," wherein, as I noted in a previous post, he spoke of "mobilizing" and "deploying" such civilians.

Hmmm.  Okay, other than the fact that such "mobilized" and "deployed" civilians won't wear a uniform, how is their service to be differentiated from military service? Is military service now to be defined as strictly combat?  Any other job will be filled by "civilians" (cough, cough)?

I'm sorry, but I'm not seeing a distinction here between civilian and military, except for that not-wearing-a-uniform thing. Take a closer look: Bush says that the government would "hire civilians with critical skills to serve on missions abroad when America needs them." Call me crazy, but that doesn't sound like those who have enlisted--er, volunteered--would have a lot of say about when and where they're going.

The increasing militarization of this country should be of deep concern to all of us. The Democrats' enthusiastic acquiescence to increasing the size of our military disgusts, saddens, and enrages me. And the proposed Civilian Reserve Corps is just a disguise for yet more military "reservists." This blurring of the distinction between civil servants and military personnel is very, very dangerous and does not bode well for the continuation of even the crippled democracy we are barely holding onto.

I urge you to read Arthur Silber on this topic. He is one of the few clear voices raised in protest against what is happening to our nation, one of the few to understand what's happening and to continue to warn of the consequences, a Cassandra perhaps, but an untiring and brave man in the face of personal difficulties that would silence most of us.

What do you think this means? (with added editorial comment) (update)

We were struck by this from Bush's speech and wonder just what it means:

We also need to examine ways to mobilize talented American civilians to deploy overseas - where they can help build democratic institutions in communities and nations recovering from war and tyranny.

Ways to mobilize civilians?

As Jim says, I don't think he's talking about NGOs. But just what IS he talking about?

And let's say you want to mobilize these talented civilians. What civilian in his or her right mind would volunteer to go to Iraq?  Particularly if they're supposed to go out into communities rather than staying behind the walls of the Green Zone. Okay, he says "overseas," but talks about nations "recovering from war and tyranny." Afghanistan? Still at war, not recovering. Lebanon? Again, what "talented civilians" would want to go there? What countries does he have in mind?

More contract workers? Will the only military troops there be combat troops, with the rest to be contracted out to civilians?

Is he hinting at a skills draft?

I can only hope he'll try the carrot before he tries the stick.

ADDED: The more Jim and I talk about it, the more we are struck by the use of the words "mobilize" and "deploy" in talking about civilians. I mean, those words are used in the context of military actions: you mobilize and deploy troops, the National Guard, etc. So it seems to us that the deliberate use of "mobilize" and "deploy" casts a decidedly militaristic shadow, and that some sort of back-door draft or skills draft is somewhere at the back of BushCo's "mind."

 

We're open to suggestions. So far I haven't seen anyone else mention this on the blogs.

UPDATE: I have now seen one reference to this statement, here:

But little information was immediately available on Bush's statement that "we need to examine ways to mobilize talented American civilians to deploy overseas." The president linked that issue to a working group he said was proposed by Sen. Joseph Lieberman, D-Conn., and others to work across the aisle on issues related to the administration's war on terror.

The article discusses the appointment of a single coordinator for reconstruction in Iraq; presumably, this "mobilization" of talented civilians has to do with said reconstruction and the provinical reconstruction teams now being envisioned for Iraq.

It may be that military speak is what comes naturally to Bush, or to his speech writer, and that that's what explains the vocabulary here.

But who really knows? 

Drafting grandpa and grandma: military retirees may be mobilized

In addition to as many as 10,000 Navy troops being trained for ground service in Iraq, we may now see the mobilization of military retirees--including those who are over 60 and disabled--as part of the desperate measures undertaken by the Army to get enough cannon fodder:

Quite simply put, the Pentagon is preparing to mobilize as many retired veterans as possible, including those who are disabled and over age 60.  This is the absolutely closest thing to a draft you can get without it becoming a press-gang operation, Viet Nam style.

The Federal Register dated April 18 includes these notifications:

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Office of the Secretary

32 CFR Part 64

[DoD-2006-OS-0022]
[RIN 0790-AH92]

Management and Mobilization of Regular and Reserve Retired Military Members

SUMMARY: This rule prescribes uniform policy and guidance governing the peacetime management of retired military personnel, both Regular and Reserve, in preparation for their use during a mobilization.

(c) Military retiree categories.
(1) Category I. Non-disability military retirees under age 60 who have been retired fewer than 5 years.
(2) Category II. Non-disability military retirees under age 60 who have been retired 5 years or more.
(3) Category III. Military retirees, including those retired for disability, other than categories I or II retirees (includes warrant officers and healthcare professionals who retire from active duty after age 60).

Sec.  64.4  Policy.

(a) It is DoD policy that military retirees be ordered to active duty as needed to perform such duties as the Secretary concerned considers necessary in the interests of national defense as described in 10 U.S.C. 12301 and 688.

(d) Military retirees shall be ordered to active duty with full pay and allowances. They may not be used to fill mobilization billets in a non-pay status.

According to one draft-resistance site, the first use of military retirees may well be in the health care services. And it wouldn't be a first:

The peacetime U.S. Army doesn't have very many doctors, nurses, or medical technicians; most of those in the military are in the Reserves.  Once someone volunteers for the military in any capacity, they can be recalled for active duty at any time. During the 1990-1991 Gulf War, even retired physician assistants were called back to active duty -- the first time in 30 years that any retired soldiers had been recalled.  In April 2006, the Department of Defense published new rules to permit them to call up "as many retirees as necessary to meet national security needs".

Since a medical draft is more likely--at least at first--than a general draft, it makes sense that doctors, nurses, and technicians who are familiar with the military would be the first hauled out of retirement, although I can well imagine these older people also doing many kinds of desk/support jobs. Perhaps as the Reserves cease to be Reserves and are more and more treated like the active Army, they'll begin staffing Reserve offices. Who knows?

You know, if the government expects people to volunteer for military service, it should really stop initiating these wars of choice. Who wants to go off to a meat grinder?

 

Backdoor draft about to get a boost

I haven't written about the draft in some time, but a diary on Kos alerted me to a new development:

Individual Warriors will be the new label for Soldiers serving in the Individual Ready Reserve.

Simultaneously, the new name will lead to a cultural shift away from the unstructured group of inactive individuals into a cohesive group of Soldiers who are trained, aware and ready to augment Army missions when called upon.

[snip]

Soldiers in the IRR will be a “viable pool” of individual warriors “trained and employable to meet the needs of the Army.”

[snip]

“While the mission of the IRR is to provide a pool of previously trained Soldiers who are ‘individually ready’ for call-up, our culture and past management of the IRR has made it difficult for many to accept that call-ups will become common practice,” said Maj. Nadine Kokolis, a mobilization officer in the Army’s G-1.

Did you notice that? "Call-ups will become common practice." Right now, enlisting obligates a soldier to four years of active duty, but that soldier also has an obligation of four more years of inactive duty. In the past, those four years were little noticed. But now, in an Army strapped for usable bodies, those four years will become essentially like the Army Reserves. The IRR has already been tapped for needed specialties, but its use will now be expanded.

“In order to establish realistic readiness reporting, the Army is conducting a systematic screening of the IRR database to reconcile existing records and identify non-mobilization assets, and separate those Soldiers who no longer have further potential for useful military service,” added Kokolis.

The Army will institute an annual screening and training program for all assigned IWs who align with the Army Force Generation model – Reset/Train; Ready; Available. This program will be developed and carried out in order to maintain positive contact, administer refresher training as individual skills degrade and ensure the deployable readiness.

That sounds like the Army Reserves to me. And we know what's happened to the reservists. Well, the Individual Warriors (what a name! Is it supposed to make the poor schmucks feel all macho and stuff?) are now the reserves backing up the reserves.

Onward into never-ending war and militarism.

Support the Student Privacy Protection Act

Right now, thanks to a provision in the odious-on-too-many-grounds-to-enumerate No Child Left Behind Act, schools are obligated to provide military recruiters with information about high school students in order to make recruiters' jobs easier. Parents can opt out of providing this info, but in most school districts they are not even informed of the provision nor of the fact that they can opt out.

This is another case of the government intruding into family life, one you don't hear about too much from the wingnut fundies, I might add.

Rep. Mike Honda (D-CA) hopes to introduce legislation, H.R. 551, that would make access to children's personal information an opt-in rather than an opt-out choice.

You can help. Honda is seeking "citizen co-sponsors" to sign a petition that will be used to encourage other legislators to co-sponsor the bill in Congress. Please sign the petition! And please pass this news on to your family and friends interested in keeping the military out of kids' lives and kids' personal records. You might also call or write your representatives to urge them to co-sponsor this bill.

Also visit the Leave My Child Alone! website for more information on what else you can do to help protect our kids. From their site, you can opt out your own child, or tell your friends or family members how to do so. You can also find out how to work with your school board and how to host a party to help spread the word.

With the increasingly scandalous tactics being used by recruiters, we need to make a stand against the increasing presence of the military in schools, in family life, and in civil life as a whole. This is one place to start. Let's do it.

Recruitment woes and a glance (and a step?) backward

The Army's recruitment woes continue to deepen; for a summary of the military's efforts to recruit, read this excellent summary by Michael Schwartz, too lengthy to quote here but well worth reading in order to get an overview of just how bad things are when it comes to recruiting and retaining soldiers. As he puts it,

New recruitment appears to be entering freefall, with the most drastic declines among African-Americans, who traditionally make up 25 percent of the volunteer   Army. January and February recorded the first Marine recruitment shortfalls in a decade; while the Army is running 6 percent below targets for the year. Hardest hit have been the Reserves, with a 10 percent decline, and the Army National Guard at 26 percent. These units are in full crisis, with the Guard already announcing it will not reach full strength in 2005, and Reserve Commander General James Helmly stating that "overuse" is making his units into "a broken force." Reeves reports that even the military academies have suffered 15-25 percent declines in applications for admission. To make matters worse, as USA Today has reported, the antiwar movement has begun (with at least some success) targeting the recruitment process. (A meticulous account by activist   Peter Charaek of one successful protest in Oregon can be found here.)

The result is that there has been a series of reports that recruiters, under tremendous pressure to meet quotas, have been engaging in some reprehensible tactics in order to sign up candidates for military service. These tactics include lying, showing recruitees how to cheat, falsifying test results and records, and now (via Kos), threatening a young man with arrest in case of failure to meet with the recruiter (link to original story omitted because I didn't want to register etc.).

The Bush administration continues to deny the possibility of a draft, despite a growing chorus of voices warning that without a draft, the military will simply not be able to carry out its mission (whatever muddied idea of "mission" there is). No one wants to join the Army despite the various inducements and ad campaigns the Army trots out. So without a draft, what options are left?

Steve Gilliard showcased this article a couple of days ago, in which four possible recruitment strategies were discussed:

• peer pressure: creating an atmosphere that would idealize military service as service, so that joining up would be a cool thing to do
• combine recruitment efforts of all military branches into one operation (yeah, that'll happen ...)
• expand privatization of military jobs
• use undocumented immigrants and tie citizenship to service

I don't want to get into the specifics of each horrible idea at the moment. What struck me was the discussion of using peer pressure. The flip side of the bit about making enlistment seem noble is making the refusal to join cowardly or immoral--particularly if young women are encouraged to use pressure on young men.

A blast from the past! And one we could well do without. Yet, despite the fact that there are now women in the military, and despite the fact that this is 2005, there are still people like Walter Russell Mead, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, digging up these old chestnuts:

Grass-roots pressure, perhaps from the opposite sex, might help get the message across. During the Civil War, "girls were encouraged not to dance with boys who were not in uniform," Mr. Mead said.

Similarly, when demand boomed for soldiers during World War I, women in England carried white feathers, which they gave to men who appeared to be healthy enough to serve but were not in the military.

"It was an attempt to appeal, through the patriotism of young women, to the patriotism of young men," said Mr. Mead, the author of "Power, Terror, Peace and War: America's Grand Strategy in a World at Risk." "It's well known to be one of the initiatives to which they respond. ..."

Anachronism is always jarring. And so is synchronicity. It just so happens that I recently finished a mystery novel called Birds of a Feather in which the Order of the White Feather figured prominently. Up until then, I hadn't known of the existence of this WWI organization:

In August 1914, Admiral Charles Fitzgerald founded the Order of the White Feather. With the support of leading writers such as Mary Ward and Emma Orczy, the organisation encouraged women to give out white feathers to young men who had not joined the British Army.

Notice that it was founded by an admiral. Regardless, many young women threw themselves into their work with a vengeance, and indeed, vengeance may have played no small part: the writer Compton MacKenzie said that these "idiotic" young women were using the white feather to rid themselves of boyfriends who had become tiresome to them.

In any case, the use of women to manipulate men--the official use by the government, no less--is a repugnant thought and a throwback to "behind every good man etc." thinking. It's insulting to men and to women. And it would be well for these great thinkers who resurrect these moldy ideas to recall that back in the anti-Vietnam War days, many a young woman would have pressured young men to resist the draft for moral reasons. Of course, the Walter Meads of the world never look to the Vietnam War for examples of anything (including the working definition of the word quagmire). No, they would rather hark all the way back to the Civil War if either of the World Wars doesn't suffice in examples.

If all these people can come up with in the way of getting people to sign up are some threadbare ideas like this one, perhaps it's time to admit that, as Steve says, "Look, you want people to join the military. Don't fight illegal wars."

Draft update

Talk of a draft continues as the military finds itself unable to meet its recruiting goals. The Carter-Glastris article I discussed in March got a lot of play on the Internet and has been repeatedly cited as proof that the draft is a real possibility.

Worse, legislators are calling for an increase in the size of the armed forces, calling for anywhere from 30,000 to 100,000 more bodies. The Project for a New American Century (PNAC) has sent a letter to legislators urging an increase of 25,000 a year for the next several years for the active duty Army and Marine Corps. Yes, it will certainly take more cannon fodder to carry out their little project of redesigning the Middle East.

Such calls come at a time when the regular Army is failing to meet its recruiting goals. In February, the Army missed its recruitment goal for the first time in nearly five years; in March, it fell short by 32 per cent. The Guard and the Reserve are also having problems.

In an attempt to get the volunteers it needs, the Army is pulling out the stops. It has raised the age limit for enlistment in the Guard and Reserve from 34 to 39. We've all read about the sizeable bonuses for reenlistment. And now the Army is inaugurating a new program designed to target parents, who are increasingly against their children joining the military:

As unlikely as it sounds, the Army is planning to try to convince parents that sending their beloved children to war is good for them. How? They are going to use slick marketing and propaganda, including:

Television advertisements focused on mothers, fathers, coaches, and ministers—people the Army sees as “influencers.”

Sending vets from the Iraq and Afghanistan wars on home visits with recruiters to tell parents “the Army story.”

Producing a video that highlights the voices of parents who tell viewers how joining the Army was good for their children.

A direct mail campaign to high school juniors and seniors requesting visits to discuss the benefits of joining the Army.

This seems like a bit of a “Hail Mary” pass by the Army. Convincing parents to send their children to war or join the military while the U.S. policy is one of preemptive war is going to be a tough sell. The propaganda they are planning will have to be pretty convincing.

Especially after we were lied into this war. Crediblility problem, anyone?

Some experts believe that the administration faces a deadline when it comes to the military:

Lawrence Korb, assistant defense secretary under President Ronald Reagan, supports the all-volunteer military. But he said the Bush administration is severely straining the military and faces a deadline.

"You've got about another year,'' said Korb, who is now an analyst at the Center for American Progress, a liberal think tank. "If you don't cut back in Iraq, your all-volunteer Army and Marine Corps are going to be in big trouble. ''

So there you have it. Please check out the anti-draft links in the right column for more information on how people are organizing against the draft. I'm keeping my ear to the ground on this.

More indications a draft may be on the way

America has a choice. It can be the world's superpower, or it can maintain the current all-volunteer military, but it probably can't do both.

This is the conclusion of Phil Carter (of Intel Dump) and Paul Glastris in the Washington Monthly: it's time to bring back the draft. Here's the crux of the matter, in their words:

America's all-volunteer military simply cannot deploy and sustain enough troops to succeed in places like Iraq while still deterring threats elsewhere in the world. Simply adding more soldiers to the active duty force, as some in Washington are now suggesting, may sound like a good solution. But it's not, for sound operational and pragmatic reasons. America doesn't need a bigger standing army; it needs a deep bench of trained soldiers held in reserve who can be mobilized to handle the unpredictable but inevitable wars and humanitarian interventions of the future. And while there are several ways the all-volunteer force can create some extra surge capacity, all of them are limited.

The only effective solution to the manpower crunch is the one America has turned to again and again in its history: the draft. Not the mass combat mobilizations of World War II, nor the inequitable conscription of Vietnam--for just as threats change and war-fighting advances, so too must the draft. A modernized draft would demand that the privileged participate. It would give all who serve a choice over how they serve. And it would provide the military, on a "just in time" basis, large numbers of deployable ground troops, particularly the peacekeepers we'll need to meet the security challenges of the 21st century.

(You'll forgive me if this vision of huge numbers of "just in time" soldiers who can be deployed on a moment's notice doesn't warm the cockles of my heart, I'm sure. But that's an argument for another time, one I hope to make in the near future.)

More and more people are beginning to make such a case for a universal draft. Carter and Glastris give the numbers behind their reasoning, and those numbers are about to get even worse.

In February, the active-duty Army missed its recruitment goal by 27%, the first time in nearly five years that it has missed its goal.

The February shortfall is especially worrisome because it comes as the Army is trying to lure recruits with the largest enlistment bonuses it has ever offered: up to $20,000 to some recruits willing to sign on for four years. The Pentagon has also been adding thousands of recruiters for the Army and other branches.

Doug Smith, a spokesman for U.S. Army Recruiting Command at Fort Knox in Kentucky, attributed the shortfall in part to competition from the improving economy and parents' fears that their children could be injured or killed in Iraq. As of Wednesday, nearly 1,500 U.S. servicemembers had died in Iraq since the invasion in March 2003.

Smith also said the Army has used up many of its "delayed entry" recruits — people who agree to sign up, but whose enlistment is delayed until later for their convenience or the Army's. Last year, the Army rushed several thousand recruits in the delayed entry program into basic training to meet its 2004 recruiting target. Normally, those recruits would have been available this year to boost recruiting numbers.

According to David Segal, a military sociologist, the Army is unlikely to meet its recruiting goal of 80,000 fresh bodies to replenish its ranks. Lauren Thompson, a military analyst, said that

several Army generals told him last year that recruiting was likely to "fall off a cliff" in 2005. "I think this spells a major recruiting shortfall for the Army."

Guard and reserve recruiting has also lagged:

Through January, four months into a recruiting year that runs from October 2004 through September 2005, the Army Guard was almost 24% behind its recruiting target. Figures were unavailable for February. The Army Reserve was about 10% below its recruiting target through February.

This isn't too surprising when you consider that 40% of the troops in Iraq are guard or reserve, hardly what they thought they'd be getting into when they signed up for a weekend a month and two weeks in the summer.

For the first time in ten years, the Marine Corps also failed to meet its monthly recruitment goal for January. True, they missed it by only 3%, but

the recent failure of the Marines, who historically have had the luxury of turning away willing recruits, is a potential problem for the service.

[snip]

Richard H. Kohn, a military historian at the University of North Carolina, said, "It's most troubling because the Marines tend to attract people who are the most macho, seek the most danger and are attracted by the service most likely to put them into combat."

Senior Marine personnel officials say that one month is hardly a trend, that the Marine Corps is slightly ahead of pace for the fiscal year beginning last October and that they fully expect to meet their overall goal for the year. But senior officers acknowledge that the drop in January - and close calls in November and December - could be linked to the widely publicized risks in Iraq.

So there you have it. This whole thing is beginning to have about it the depressing reek of inevitability. Now is the time to be aware and to mobilize against the draft.

 

Schools do the military's bidding

From Teresa Whitehurst, the woman with advice on how to begin now to keep your children out of the draft, comes some further advice, this time on how to protect your child from the ASVAB--the Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery. (No, I'm not providing a link to any Armed Services info on this. )

As Whitehurst points out, schools have become "essential tools in the Pentagon's toolbox," giving recruiters easy access to kids. Any parent who has had kids in high school--or even in college, for that matter--is aware of this from the number of phone calls received from the local recruitment center. (We even had a recruiter show up at our front door, asking for my son! He was swiftly and firmly sent on his way.) Thanks to the little-known Section 9528 of the federal No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, the Pentagon has access to directories of all public high schools (supplying them with student names, addresses and phone numbers) to make it easy for them to target students for recruitment. Michael Berg says:

A student or parent wishing to protect privacy must actively contact the school to opt out and protect their personal information. In some districts, it can be difficult to withhold information specifically from recruiters, yet still allow this information to be used for other purposes that parents and students may approve of, such as honor rolls or school TV shows.

This is outrageous enough, serving as but one clear indicator of just how far our society has gone toward militarization. But it's not the only outrage.

The ASVAB is currently being administered by about 14,000 schools nationwide. It's the admissions and placement test for the US military, and, according to the military, can also help a student choose a civilian career--a claim that is dubious, at best. But primarily, as the American Friends Service Committee points out, its use in high schools is designed for one purpose:

The military uses ASVAB to do targeted recruitment of young people. Recruiters give special attention to students in the 11th or 12th grade who meet minimum standards - what they refer to as "pre-qualified leads." They use test information (scores, name, address, etc.) to identify and reach young people they hope to sign up. Recruiters contact these young people by letters, phone calls, and visits to home and school. Students may receive calls from recruiters even if they say they are not interested in joining the military.

Many parents don't even know of the existence of the ASVAB, nor are they aware that a child cannot be forced to take this test. As Whitehurst says,

The ASVAB "aptitude" test was news to me; I'd never even heard of   it, and the school never asked for parental consent before administering it.   None of the parents I knew had any warning about the test or when it   would be given. When they did hear about it, most of them believed that this   was just another standardized test, or that kids refusing to take it would be   penalized in some way.

Whitehurst provides a list of ten ways to protect your children from the sometimes coercive tactics used in administering the test. The most important is the first: call the school and ask if and when the test will be given.

If your child's school does give the test, you need to find out some details, such as how to opt out of the test, what activities will be provided for those who do not take the test, and so on. You may need to prepare your child ahead of time to resist pressure that may be applied.

Please, if you have a high-school age child read the whole article. We have to begin now to curtail the creeping militarization of our schools (and, indeed, our entire society). Why should our schools take time out of education to provide the military with information it should be forced to collect on its own? What message are we sending when we allow military recruiters such free access to our schools?

It's time--really, it's way past time--to start making some noise about these inroads into what is supposed to be our civilian society. Learn the facts, contact your school board, write a letter to your local paper. Help our children resist recruitment and militarization.