Counter-recruitment

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Globe icon
 This article or section deals primarily with the United States and does not represent a worldwide view of the subject.
Please improve this article or discuss the issue on the talk page.
This article or section may be slanted towards recent events.
Please try to keep recent events in historical perspective. (February 2008)
Part of a series on

Anti-war topics
Opposition to…

Military action in Iran • Iraq War • War in Afghanistan • War on Terrorism • Landmines • Vietnam War • Nuclear armament • World War II • World War I • Second Boer War • American Civil War • War of 1812 • American
Revolutionary War
Agents of opposition

Anti-war organizations • Conscientious objectors • Draft dodgers • Peace movement • Peace churches • Peace camp
Related ideologies

Anti-imperialism • Antimilitarism • Appeasement • Nonviolence • Pacificism • Pacifism • Satyagraha
Media

Books • Films • Songs
Politics Portal ·  v • d • e 

Counter-recruitment is a strategy often taken up to oppose war. Counter-recruitment is an attempt to prevent military recruiters from enlisting civilians into the military. There are several methods commonly utilized in a counter-recruitment campaign, ranging from the political speech to direct action. Such a campaign can also target entities connected to the military, such as intelligence agencies, or private corporations, especially those with defense contracts.

Contents

[edit] In the United States

Recently, counter-recruitment (which has long been a strategy of pacifist and other anti-war groups) has received a large boost in the United States with the unpopularity of the war in Iraq and the well-publicized recruitment difficulties of branches of the U.S. military, particularly the Army. Beginning in early 2005, the U.S. counter-recruitment movement grew substantially, particularly on high school and college campuses, where it is often led by students who see themselves as targeted for military service in a war they don't support.

[edit] Early history

The counter-recruitment movement became important as the successor to the anti-draft movement with the end of conscription in the United States in 1973, just after the end of the Vietnam War. The military stepped up its efforts to recruit volunteers to fill the gap, with the total number of recruiters, recruiting stations, and dollars spent on recruiting each more than doubling between 1971 and 1974.[1] Anti-war and anti-draft activists responded with a number of initiatives, using tactics similar to those used by counter-recruiters today. Activists distributed leaflets to students, publicly debated recruiters, and used equal-access provisions to obtain space next to recruiters to dispute their claims. The American Friends Service Committee (A.F.S.C.) and the Central Committee for Conscientious Objectors (C.C.C.O.) began publishing counter-recruitment literature and attempting to coordinate the movement nationally. These organizations have been continuously involved in counter-recruitment to the present day.[2]

Protest at recruiting station in San Francisco.
Protest at recruiting station in San Francisco.

[edit] High schools

On U.S. high school campuses, most counter-recruitment activism since 2001 has focused around a provision of the No Child Left Behind Act, which requires that high schools provide contact and other information to the military for all of their students who do not opt out.

Counter-recruitment campaigns have attempted to put pressure on schools to disobey the law in protest, to be active about informing students of their ability to opt out, and/or to allow counter-recruiters equal access to military recruiters. These political campaigns have had a significant degree of success, particularly in the Los Angeles area, where one has been led by the Coalition Against Militarism in Our Schools, and the San Francisco Bay Area, where one has been led by Military Out of Our Schools-Bay Area. A simpler and easier, though perhaps less effective, strategy by counter-recruiters has been to simply show up before or after the school day and provide students entering or exiting their school with opt-out forms, produced by the local school district or by a sympathetic national legal organization such as the American Civil Liberties Union or the National Lawyers Guild.

Organizations which have attempted to organize such campaigns on a national scale include A.F.S.C. and C.C.C.O., the Campus Antiwar Network, and the War Resisters League. Code Pink, with the Ruckus Society, has sponsored training camps on counter-recruitment as well as producing informational literature for use by counter-recruiters. United for Peace and Justice has counter-recruitment as one of its seven issue-specific campaigns. Mennonite Central Committee http://www.mcc.org/us/co/counter/conference/ has a lot of resources on the subject and held a conference Nov. 3-5, 2006 in San Antonio, TX for those working on this issue.

[edit] Colleges and universities

On U.S. college campuses, the Campus Antiwar Network (C.A.N.) claims that its protests have chased recruiters off over a dozen schools since its founding in 2003, including San Francisco State University, City College of New York, University of Illinois at Chicago, UC Santa Cruz, and (in the first and perhaps most-known protest, as president Bush was being inaugurated) Seattle Central Community College, as well as disrupting recruitment at countless others.[3] A common method of attack against military recruitment at schools which have non-discrimination policies that protect lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgendered students has been to demand that military recruitment be prevented in order to comply with these policies, as these schools consider the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy discriminatory against LGBT persons.

C.A.N. also organized nationally coordinated student counter-recruitment protests on December 6, 2005, as the Supreme Court was hearing arguments in Rumsfeld v. FAIR to decide the legality of the Solomon Amendment, which requires universities to allow military recruiters or forfeit their federal funding.

At colleges and universities, counter-recruitment activities have often resulted in discipline from university administrators, who have threatened activists with penalties including expulsion, and law enforcement, who have arrested and sometimes used physical violence against activists engaged in counter-recruitment protest. C.A.N. says that it has faced ten "major free speech cases" relating to its counter-recruitment activities. In every case, all charges against students were dropped after a public defense campaign was waged. Many counter-recruitment activities at universities also appear in the Pentagon's surveillance database of anti-war protests, a portion of which was leaked to NBC in December 2005.

[edit] Proposition I/College Not Combat

Perhaps the most significant single result of the counter-recruitment movement to date has been the passage, with 60% in support, of Proposition I/College Not Combat in San Francisco on November 5, 2005. This proposition, which does not carry enforcement power, declared the city's opposition to military recruitment in public high schools and universities and stated that money should instead be directed toward scholarships. It was written by Todd Chretien.

[edit] Arguments surrounding recruitment

Counter-recruitment poster.
Counter-recruitment poster.

In addition to the general debates about war and the alleged connection of the military to homophobia, sexism, racism, and imperialism which take place across the anti-war movement , there are debates about the benefits of military service and the promises of recruiters which take place specifically in the context of counter-recruitment:

  • Whether recruiters exploit a lack of other options for underprivileged young people, in a phenomenon sometimes called the "Poverty Draft."
  • Whether recruiters are honest. Various investigations, such as one in May 2005 by Cincinnati's WLWT, have revealed dishonest conduct by individuals; a recruiter interviewed in the documentary Why We Fight notes that people in his profession have "the bad reputation of used car salesmen." Military defenders argue that the bad actions of a few shouldn't taint the whole. Counter-recruiters argue that high pressure on recruiters creates systemic dishonesty. The U.S. Army shut down its entire recruitment apparatus for a single day in 2005 in order to "refocus" on ethical conduct.[4]
  • Whether the military will pay for an education. Through various programs, such as the G.I. Bill in the U.S., which offers up to $71,000, young people are given an incentive to join the military in the form of scholarships for college when their enlistments expire. This is the primary reason why many enlist; a young recruit interviewed in Why We Fight, William Solomon, cites this as his motivation. Counter-recruiters argue that this is a false hope, noting for example that 57% of those who apply for G.I. Bill benefits do not receive them, and that the average net payment to those who do is less than $2200. This is a consequence of various eligibility requirements; 65% of eligible veterans receive money.[5]
  • Whether military service provides job skills. Recruiters often suggest that personal and technical skills learned in the military will improve later employment prospects in civilian life, with very similar skills utilized for nursing and electronic and mechanical repair. Counter-recruiters claim that this does not apply to most recruits, citing for example a study in the U.S. which found that 12% of male and 6% of female veterans say they have used their military skills in their civilian careers.[6] However, a study titled "Military Experience & CEOs: Is There a Link?" found that "leadership skills acquired during military training can absolutely enhance one’s chances for success in corporate life."[7]
  • Whether reform from within is a better solution than disassociation. Many who agree that there are problems in the military argue that these will be better solved if those who recognize them as problems gain influence in the military rather than avoiding it. Others argue in response that the military's problems are structural, and that its disciplinary hierarchy prevents successful internal pressure. This debate occurs mostly in narrower contexts, such as debates about whether left-wing activists should join the military or whether universities in the U.S. should have ROTC programs, rather than in discussions of general enlistment.[8]
  • Whether the military inaccurately promotes a "romanticized" view of combat - using catchphrases such as honor, courage, and service - and glosses over death, injury, and civilian suffering, in order to give recruits a "soft" vision of the job.[citation needed]

[edit] In the United Kingdom

Opposition to joining the British Army existed in Ireland at least as far back as the 1800s. A number of anti-recruiting songs dating from the pre-World War I period exist, with some dating the mid 1800s - some examples are Arthur McBride, Mrs. McGrath, and Johnny I Hardly Knew Ye.

[edit] In Canada

Recently, Operation Objection has emerged as the umbrella counter-recruitment campaign in Canada. Though Canada did not send troops to Iraq, there has been significant Canadian military participation in the NATO mission in Afghanistan, with over 2500 Canadian troops serving there as part of the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) [9].Operation Objection presently claims to have active counter-recruitment operations in 8 to 10 Canadian cities.[10]

On October 25th, 2007, an attempt by the student union at the University of Victoria to ban the Canadian Forces from participating in career fairs on campus failed when the student body voted overwhelmingly in favor of allowing the Canadian military to participate in recruitment and career development activities available to students. Approximately 500 students, five times the usual attendance, appeared at the Annual General Meeting of the University of Victoria Students' Society (UVSS), and voted to defeat the motion proposed to stop the Canadian Forces from appearing on campus at career development events, with only an estimated 25 votes in favor of the ban. Those voting against the ban argued that the ban was a restriction on freedom of choice and an infringement of students' free speech, that it went beyond the mandate of student government, and that student union executives should not be advocating policy that does not reflect the views of the fee-paying student body. [11] [12] [13] [14]

In the 2005-06 Academic Year at York University, the York Federation of Students, a federation representing all 10 of the universities student unions clashed with a Canadian Forces recruiter as members of the YFS executive attempted to forcibly remove the recruiter and the kiosk from the Student Center. The confrontation was especially heated, due to the imposing physical statures of both the YFS President and the army recruiter. The actions by the YFS drew fire from both political and non-political circles on campus. Some students saw the military as a career opportunity. In one extreme circumstance, a number of right-wing executive members of the Glendon College Student Union, an affiliate of the federation, introduced a resolution in council, censuring the actions of the elected YFS executive. A representative of the YFS threatened to withdraw YFS financial support to the GCSU in retaliation. The resolution would be defeated narrowly in the floor vote. Students-members of the Canadian Army Reserve Corp, including a recent veteran of the War on Afghanistan, loudly protested the results of the vote. [15] [16] [17]

In November of 2007, the Minister of Education for Prince Edward Island, Gerard Greenan, was requested by the Council of Canadians to ban military recruitment on PEI campuses. The Minister responded that military service "is a career and... we think its right to let the Armed Forces have a chance to present this option to students."[18]

[edit] Notes

  1. ^  Cortright, David (2005). Soldiers in Revolt. Haymarket Books. ISBN 1-931859-27-2.  Page 187.
  2. ^  Cortright, David (2005). Soldiers in Revolt. Haymarket Books. ISBN 1-931859-27-2.  Page 237.
  3. ^  Past Actions and Events. Retrieved on 2006-03-18.
  4. ^  "Amid Scandal, Recruitment Halts", CBS News, May 20, 2005. 
  5. ^  Diener, Sam; Munro, Jamie (June-July 2005). "Military Money for College: A Reality Check". Peacework. AFSC. 
  6. ^  Honesty in Recruitment Newsletter (pdf). Coalition Against Militarism in our Schools. Retrieved on 2006-03-18.
  7. ^  "Yes, sir! Military officers do well as CEOs", MSNBC, June 16, 2006. 
  8. ^  Wilkes, Sean (2004). Advocates for Columbia ROTC and Students United for America Brief: Proposal to Return ROTC to Columbia’s Campus. Retrieved on 2006-03-18.

[edit] External links