Militarization of daily life

In looking back on my initial list of how my daily life is militarized, I realize that I did not have much to say about the topic. The only things I could think of was how regimented my daily life is, and how this reminded me of being in the army and how regimented their lives are. At the beginning of the semester, I was not aware of how my life is militarized. Even though I am not in the army nor do I support the current war, I am still militarized. I am currently doing a project for another class on women in advertising and the advertising industry. The thing that surprised me most in my research for this was how unaware we are about how advertising effects us. We see advertising everywhere, from large billboard ads to signs in windows to websites we commonly surf (cough facebook). In this same way, we are exposed to advertisements for the military on a daily basis but do not even know it. If we go to the movies, we see a video to join the army before the movie trailers, and then even one of the movie trailers could be for a war film. It is not necessarily that the Army is everywhere, and this is not even necessary, so long as they have their advertisements everywhere. The thing that I find almost scary about advertising and especially advertising for the military is that it is an unconscious awareness and processing of the images we see. Even if I notice that I am looking at an advertisement for the army, because of the short amount of time spent looking at it, this is stored in the back of my mind where I am no longer conscious of it. In this same way, it seems a lot of people are unaware of how the army's advertisement has effected them. I know many people who consider themselves politically liberal and anti-war but enjoy playing Call of Duty or watching a war film. After this class and after researching more on the advertising industry and how advertisements work, I feel like I can be aware when I see something that is targeted for recruitment and make sure to ignore it, but that is only until the army thinks of a new way to advertise. Right now they have clothes, stores, video games, the Internet, television shows, paper ads, movies and in some cases, educational institutions to advertise through. What's next?

Response to Sanger Article

To me, comparing the US's presence in Iraq to Korea is just another one of the Bush administration's excuses to stay in Iraq indefinitely. In his article, Sanger references Donald L. Kerrick, a retired general who states: "If we can make this [Iraq] like Korea, then we have been successful". He also says that this analogy does not fit Iraq, so although the Korea model may seem like a positive model for the US an the US's military actions, it does not apply to the current situation in Iraq. By comparing the invasion of Iraq to a 'success story' like Korea, of course the current invasion will sound positive. However, Sanger also tells us that "Historical analogy has been a problem for this administration since the start of the Iraq war in 2003...even then, historians and analysts were warning against such comparasions, arguing that those were two cohesive societies that were exhausted by years of war and bore little resemblance to the fractured Iraqi society and its potential for internal violence". By comparing the Iraq war to historical sucesses of the US, the administration puts a positive spin on the current situation and also gives a false representation of the reasons and goals of invading Iraq. According to Sanger, President Bush refuses to quit, stating, "We'll succeed unless we quit". Again, this claim seems like an easy way for the administration to insist that we stay in Iraq, lest we fail at our goal. The impression that I get from the Sanger article is that the Bush administration will say just about anything and make historical and political connections where there are none to justify staying in Iraq.

Sex Among Allies reading

The part of Moon's reading that I found most troubling (though there were many parts that were upsetting ) was on pages 8-9 when she discusses the reasoning behind the Korean prostitutes being ignored and alienated from Korean culture. The reasons she discusses are political; she says that Korea does not want to acknowledge these women because doing so would remind them of the war and that these women are "living testaments of Korea's geographical and political division into North and South and of the South's military insecurity and consequent dependence on the United States" (8). It is really sad that these women are used so much for political and war-time purposes: first as prostitutes to American soldiers and then again because Korea views them not as humans, but as proof of their dependence on the US. She goes on to discuss how South Korea felt that it was necessary to have their women prostitute themselves to US soldiers to keep US soldiers in Korea; these women were sacrificed for 'national security': "Such humiliation is a price paid by the 'little brother' in the alliance for protection by the 'big brother' (9). I know that politically there needs to be clear alliances between countries if one country is fighting for or at another country, but to use people, especially people not involved in the politics of militarization, is really terrible, and the way South Korea exploited its women to US soldiers was unnecessary. To exploit their women and then alienate these women because they are an embarrassment to South Korea is hypocritical and even more insulting to these exploited women.

Navy Support Facility about Diego Garcia website

"The mission of the U.S. Navy Support Facility Diego Garcia is “To provide logistic support to operational forces forward deployed to the Indian Ocean and Persian Gulf AORs in support of national policy objectives.” NAVSUPPFAC Diego Garcia occupies a critical part on the “tip of the spear” for U.S. military forces by supporting a multitude of unique and challenging mission requirements. Our motto and mission focus is “ONE ISLAND, ONE TEAM, ONE MISSION.”

I find it really ironic that even as the US invades other countries and uses other people's land as military bases, they still use their basic recruitment slogan of "An Army of One". The slogan "ONE ISLAND, ONE TEAM, ONE MISSION.” has essentially the same message, and communicates the same idea of a group or team mentality within the US Military. I would assume that when the US Army takes over a part of a country and forces the residents of the area to either vacate or to significantly decrease their standard of living, that the US Army would try to detach themselves from this and hide what they are doing. Instead, they flaunt it by encouraging other people to take on their slogans and messages and rally behind the US Army. At first when I read these websites and the readings on Okinawa, I was angered at the US Army for what they were doing to the residents of Okinawa and Diego Garcia. But the fact that they pretend not to be aware of any negative consequences, and even worse, expect residents to support them, is disgusting. How can the US Army be so arrogant as to think that when they come in to Okinawa and Diego Garcia and ruin people's way of living, that these people should be thankful to the US Army and show their support? these residents are not part of our Army, and are not part of the "One Team" of the US Army. It is really sickening to see how the military even incorporates the island itself into their slogan: "One Island". The islands that are taken over by the US Military are not volunteering to be part of the US's expansion of military bases, so to include them in the US's slogan and suggest that they are part of the US's mission is even more insulting to the residents of the islands.

Okinawa reading/ general thoughts on political apathy

As I read the reading about America's military presence in Okinawa, I was continually angered at the negative consequences America's military has had on Okinawa. In thinking about this, I know that Okinawa is only one example of an area that has been taken over by American military forces, and that there are many other places that this is also happening. As informative as it was to read this, I wish that more would be written about other areas this is happening to. It seems that when something terrible world-wide occurs, we only focus on one area, using that area as a representation of what is happening world-wide and we forget that it is happening world-wide. Everyone recently has been eager to help Darfur, but at the same time forgetting that these things happen elsewhere as well, and focusing on the most infamous case doesn't make anything any better elsewhere.

On a somewhat related note, but more focused on the upcoming election, I've been seeing a lot of commercials lately encouraging people to make sure to vote on Tuesday. The majority of these commercials have celebrities in them, encouraging people to vote. Are we really in such an apathetic state that the only way people are encouraged to vote is by having someone famous tell them to do it? Or is it that we probably would vote but having a celebrity tell us to do it makes it even more appealing? Either way, it seems the state of apathy and ignorance is at an all-time high.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0vtHwWReGU0

Comment to Abby's post on the Klare reading

**I couldn't find the "post a comment" button on Abby's blog, so I'll do it here.**

I also found the final paragraph of the Klare article one of the most interesting, especially considering his previous paragraph and his proposal for developing alternative energy sources. I do like how clear he makes it in his final paragraph how significant this upcoming election is regarding the issue of alternative energy sources, but I think the proposal/ recommendation he gives in the previous paragraph is a little too easy and not likely to really happen. He proposes that since the US and China together have the largest hold on the world's possession of oil, the US should cooperate with Beijing to develop alternative energy sources and more efficient transportation systems. It is very unlikely, however, that the 2 countries who are currently in a struggle to see who has more oil will put their differences aside to try to achieve an alternative plan to oil. Klare predicts that the US and China will "be locked in a dangerous struggle for dwindling supplies" (7). If (when) this is true, these countries will be even less inclined to give up their possession of oil, for fear that this will allow the other country a monopoly on oil. In this kind of situation, there is no way to make both the US and China agree to try to look for alternative sources together instead of using what they have now; Klare's proposal is overly optimistic and would not work.

Sandars reading

As I read the Sandars piece, I was initially surprised that as far back as post-WW2, America was setting itself up as the police of the world: "One commentator has suggested that 'the United States expanded its military presence to the point where it assumed, almost inadvertently and without notice, a role that has been described as Policeman of the World'" (6). I have heard this term applied to America more recently, and specifically referring to the war in Iraq, so I was initially surprised to hear it applied to America just after WW2, or at any other time besides recently. It does not surprise me though, and considering this, I understand more clearly America's intentions in Iraq and throughout the world as the world's police. Sandars argues that even though America took over the British Empire's role as the major world empire, America was not an empire. Sandars claims that an empire "By any definition...must involve the rule of one nation by another without regard to the wishes of the subject peoples and the transfer of sovereignty to the imperial power" (12). Since, according to Sandars, America did not subjugate other nations to American rule, it cannot be compared to the British empire or considered an empire itself. I would not necessarily agree with that, because the assumption of a nation that it needs to fix another country, especially by imposing its own views on them, is inherently subjugating the other country and condescending them to a 'lesser' importance. For America to assume that because it is more powerful, it is somehow better than another country uses the same logic that empires use when subjugating other countries.

Response to Gates reading

In the two opening paragraphs of this article, Defense Secretary Gates is quoted as saying, "We cannot kill or capture our way to victory...", and he argues that military action should only be taken after political or economic efforts have been taken. This idea somewhat surprises and confuses me, because especially in the current war in Iraq, military action has been presented, or at least I have seen it as, political and economical itself. Separating military action and political or economic action seems like an idealized scenario, but one that would be nearly impossible to achieve and certainly not what we are doing now. Every war inevitably involves economics or politics, so to try to separate military action from economics and politics is impossible; if there were not economic or political problems, we would not need military forces. The very fact that the US Military is involved means that there are economic and political issues that could not be addressed otherwise (theoretically). Gates warns that we should not use military forces to "undermine extremism", but again 'extremism' is a political term itself, and the current war in Iraq is based on fundamental political and ideological differences, so to try to separate military action and the politics behind it seems like a sneaky way for a government to hide its motives. I also wonder what kind of economic or political efforts Gates would recommend using in lieu of military action, especially considering how fast the US went to war in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Response to "The Pentagon Invades Your Life"

In many of my high school politics classes, we had discussions on how and where we buy things, and how we should be more conscious of where we buy from. Popular clothing stores like The Gap (same company as Old Navy, Banana Republic and Piperline) have been known to employ child laborers and paying them little more than slave's wages. When we buy from these stores, we help fund a corporation whose ethics we may disagree with. For a while in high school, I did try to remain very aware of where I bought from, and if I knew a corporation treated its employees poorly, or had child laborers, I would try not to buy from that store. This becomes difficult, however, when corporations obviously do not advertise that they have child laborers or that they pay less than minimum wages. Although I would like to remain aware of which corporations are ethical and which ones are not, it is very difficult to actually do research and find out for every store I may want to go to. As bad as it is to say, in a case like this, ignorance is bliss.

Turse's article "The Pentagon Invades Your Life" looked at this same issue, not from the perspective of how the corporations are run, but which corporations are linked to the military and profiting from Department of Defense money. Especially in today's society and economy, where there are about three major corporations that collectively own every corporation, it would be difficult to find out which corporations are linked to the military, and even more difficult to try to avoid shopping at or funding these corporations. Remaining conscious of where your money is going and then where that money goes is difficult, but when I am given the information, like I was when I read "The Pentagon Invades Your Life", it is harder to ignore the fact that my money may be funding companies and businesses that I do not support.

Response to "Corporate Warriors"

Because I am very unfamiliar with the army and military policies, I did not really know how to react to this article. I can't decide whether outsourcing or privatizing the military is a good thing or a bad thing or neither. The only issue I have with privatizing the military relates back to our discussion of military service linked with citizenship. If people feel that they are best able to display their citizenship and country pride by joining the military, how do these outsourced companies fit in? If the military becomes just like any other commodity, with division of labor, outsourcing, and privatization, does this somehow cheapen the work and sense of citizenship of those who join the military? At the end of "Corporate Warriors", Singer discusses how the trend of privatizing the military will lessen the state's hold over the military as it becomes part of the private sector: "By removing absolute control from government, however and privatizing it to the market, the state's hold over violence is broken. With the growth of the global military services industry, just as it has been in other international areas such as trade and finance, the state's role in the security sphere has now become deprivileged" (18). It seems that if the state is not involved in its security and military affairs, it defeats the purpose of having a military defending the state. If the military is sponsored and funded by private firms and not the state itself, how can they accurately represent and fight for the state? It seems very strange to outsource something like the military, because the military is created specifically to defend and represent the state, so privatizing it seems like it defeats the purpose and contradicts the point of military defense. As Singer claims bluntly, "It is outsourcing and privatization of a twenty-first-century variety, and it changes many of the old rules of international politics and warfare" (9).

Response to "Before You Enlist" Video

A lot of the things this video showed and the accounts told from people in this video were things that we have been hearing about recruitment and the disillusionment of joining the military. Most of the things in the video were ideas I have heard before about how the recruiters present the military in a positive way, and how it war is not as glamorous as they make it seem. There were some things in the video that did surprise me though, and good ideas raised that I had not previously considered. One person talked about joining the military, and how just after the first day, the images he had of the military were shattered, and that after one day he knew the military was not what he had thought it would be. One mother of a volunteer said her son was just 19 when he joined, and that at 19, people cannot make such an important decision of joining the military. This is an interesting point, especially considering how young the army begins recruitment with their video games and movies. A large part of the film spent time discussing how lost younger people are when they join -- and then leave -- the military. A fact the movie gave us was that the college funding the army promises only usually gives about 1/5 of the cost of a private school. That is about $8,000 or so for most private schools, about the same amount of a decent academic scholarship. Because the army purposely recruits people who do not come from a good background or good high school education system, they know that these people do not have much of a chance to get an academic scholarship, or even go to college, so the military provides them with a good alternative. One part of this I did not agree with was when the movie focused on veterans that are homeless, and said that a percentage of veterans are currently homeless. This is true of any demographic, and does not necessarily correlate to their time spent in the army. I was really shocked when the film discussed how women are treated in the military, and it reminded me of the controversy about gays in the military. One of the people in the movie told us about someone she knew who was raped in the military, and she was told that it would be too difficult to press charges so she should let it go. This is a very unprofessional way to handle this, and I wonder if this occurred because the army devalues its women or wants to continue to enable masculine strength and brotherhood in the army. The thing that most surprised me in this video was how the army claims to be all-volunteer but then retains the right to change your contract, and can add years on to your contract that you did not sign up for. This is a sneaky way for the military to still technically be all-volunteer but still have volunteers forced to serve for a longer time.

Comments on Beth Bailey's "The Army in the Marketplace Recruiting an All-Volunteer Force"

The thing that struck me most as I read this article is how economic and political military advertisements and recruitment are. I was surprised to read how based in economics and capitalism military recruitment is: "This system [all-volunteer military] functions as a labor market, driven by complex forces of supply and demand" (48). Advertisements used by the military was an economic and political and were used the same way advertisements for consumer goods were used: as a product to sell. I never thought of recruitment as something to be sold, but the amount of research and monetary funds that went into selling the idea of joining the army makes it clear that recruitment was something to sell: "'Let advertising do for the Army', he proposed, 'what it has done successfully for business'" (54). The research the Army invested in advertisements and targeting specific demographics shows the extent to which advertising was one of the most important factors in recruitment: "Army recruiting advertisements were, more than anything else, intended to attract draft-induced volunteers to the army rather than to be other services" (57). When the article began discussing specific slogans and advertisements used by the Army, I was really surprised when Bailey tells us that by December 1971, the Army's slogan "Today's Army Wants You To Join" had more public recognition than Ford cars and 7-Up soda. I know in general advertisements for companies and products use market research and are very particular about where they place their advertisements and who their target demographic is, but reading the specifics about how the Army placed their advertisements and how they presented the image of the Army really shocked me. When Bailey discusses how gender and race are utilized in the advertisements, I wasn't surprised at the extent the advertisements went to appeal to all races and genders, but the way advertisements for the Army, and advertisements in general, consider different genders or races just another demographic makes me angry: "Sex changed the surroundings dramatically; race changed nothing. For people of the same sex, the settings were identical, white and black people completely interchangeable" (65-66). I never knew that the Army advertisements worked the same way as product advertisements; I assumed advertisements for recruitment would have to be more personal in order to effectively convince people to join the Army, so hearing ab out the strategies used by the Army gave me a new perspective on their recruitment, and the politics and economics involved in it. I did not realize how planned and studied the Army's recruitment tactics and advertisements were: even the subtleties in advertisements, like the Army's presenting themselves as a group, instead of separating the consumer from the Army (like in the "We Want You advertisements) was planned for a specific purpose, and this economic way of presenting the Army and planning of the advertisements make their recruiting seem very sneaky.

Comments on Roger Stahl's "Have You Played the War on Terror?"

One part of Stahl's article, "Have You Played the War on Terror" that I found really interesting and that we did not get a chance to cover in class was when he is discussing the ratings of video games, specifically America's Army. He discusses how when humans in the game die, they die peacefully, even though they have just been shot to death. The Army's defense to the violence and realism in their video games is that "The point is 'not to promote violence', says Army Major Bret Wilson...'it is to promote the jobs that are done by the Army'" (124). This quote was surprising for me to read, because my initial reaction to a 'job done by the Army' would include violence: the Army's job is to go to war and fight people. Upon thinking about it, however, I can think of other jobs the Army has, such as reporting for duty and physical training and pressing their uniforms...however I don't think any of these Army jobs are shown in the video games. Stahl goes on to tell us, "Game promoters are also quick to point out the parental control feature that turns all gun fighting into laser tag" (124). I found this part so ridiculous that it was almost funny. The fact that there are parental controls that can change the weapons of war does not change the fact that their children are playing war. I also get an image of people playing a video game expecting it to be violent and bloody, and finding laser tag and people flying into the sky after they get shot. The fact that there are these parental controls also reminds me of our discussion in class a few weeks ago about the militarized can of soup, and the relations between the child who wants to eat the soup because of the cool weapons, and the parent who may be against toy guns but wants their child to eat soup. Here, the parents can technically control how violent their children's video games are, but at the risk of having the child become angry at them for taking away the realism (and fun) of the game by falsifying and changing the game. This would also create a situation where it is the child and his/ her video game versus the parents who want to separate the child from the video game, making the video game even more fun, perhaps because it is forbidden. For me, the fact that parents can technically control the violence and weapons in war video games is such a small issue when considering war video games and their overall influence for the player.

Comments on Karen Hall's "Combat Entertainment and Citizen Training in the United States"

The part of this article that I found most interesting was on page 8, when Hall discusses the idea of adults joining children's war play. She gives one example of burying toys in the backyard after they have been involved in war play. Hall claims, "Burying toys killed in action gives adults and children the opportunity to discuss the realities of war...Destruction is not followed by replay but instead by a recognition of loss". This idea is something that I had never heard of before. I never really played war games when I was younger, so I do not know much about how they are played, but I am pretty sure that most children do not have a ritual like this that involves burying their toys after they are done playing with them. However, in the context of war play, it does make sense and remain consistent with the game: if a soldier is killed, the game and the soldiers cannot break character just for your toy. Although I would imagine children would be very reluctant to bury their toys and never play with them again, this is a very direct message to children that war is not a game, and that there are serious losses in war (even more serious than never playing with that toy again). This idea reminds me a lot of war movies, and the documentary we watched and the discussion we had of war movies. As real as war movies may look, and how ever scrutinized a film may be by the Pentagon to ensure accuracy, we still know that the movie is fake because we know the actors, and we know they are not dead. Perhaps if we saw a war movie in which Matt Damon's character died and then Matt Damon never made a movie ever again, we may be able to take the casualty of war in film more seriously. Just like in war play with children's toys, films allow people to always know that the war they are watching or playing is not real, and does not have real consequences. Hall also makes the connection between children's war games and film in her article: "Re-enacting the scenes children view in other media serves to equate play with collecting. Invention and inquiry are drained from children's play when collecting becomes the primary activity their toys invite. Toy sets sold seperately or as modular universes such as Star Wars, Spinal Zone figures and vehicles, Lego military sets and GI Joe dolls train children's desires toward acquring objects rather than seeking out toys that augment creative activity, further strengthening the influence media narratives have in children's lives". Hall points out the connection between all forms of media, and how one form of media only perpetuates the ideas of another, as with film and toys. The idea of burying military toys after they have been killed in battle is an efficient way to cut off one form of media from glorifying war, and an appropriate way to teach children about the unseen part of war.