| Glamorising War? |
|
|
| Tuesday, 08 January 2008 | |
 The British Ministry of Defence is glamorising war to recruit young people into the army and is targeting children as young as seven, according to a new report."The literature available to the young glamorises the armed services but does little to show the dangers recruits may face and even less the moral dilemmas they may face," author David Gee told The Independent on Monday, January 7. "Military roles are promoted as glamorous and exciting," reads the Informed Choice? Armed Forces and Recruitment Practices in the UK report. "Warfare is portrayed as game-like and enjoyable, and outreach to the young is described as serving their personal growth and education." The report recommends sweeping changes to the MoD's current policy including a new charter setting out the responsibility of the state. It also suggests a radical review of recruitment literature. The MoD immediately denied the report conclusion. "We welcome any report that contributes to serious debate on the armed forces," said a MoD spokesman. "Our recruitment practices avoid 'glamorising war' and we refute any allegations that they depict warfare as 'game-like'." The report was financed by the Joseph Row tree Charitable Trust; an independent, progressive organization committed a peaceful world, political equality and social justice. Desertion Researcher Gee insists that recruitment advertising campaigns fail to highlight the risks of a military career to new recruits. "It omits to mention or obscures: the radical change from a civilian to a military lifestyle, ethical issues involved in killing, risks to physical and mental health, the legal obligations of enlistment, the state’s legal and moral obligations to its armed forces personnel, and the right of conscientious objection," it notes. "The omissions conspire against the potential recruit’s right and responsibility to make an informed choice about whether to enlist. "The literature also does little to enable parents to ask searching questions of their children and of recruiters in order to assure their children’s best interests." The report warns that such a failure results in having one of every two new recruits leaving the army. "The recruitment environment is becoming more challenging as the pool of potential recruits shrinks," it says. "A large number of personnel, mostly soldiers, go absent without leave (AWOL) each year," it adds. "Over £2 billion is invested each year in recruiting and training around 20,000 new personnel to replace those who leave." Child Soldiers The report says children as young as seven are being groomed for recruitment by the army with methods including school visits, literature and local cadet forces. "As the pool of potential recruits shrinks, outreach to children is expanding, including to those as young as seven. "Key messages are tailored to children's interests and values." The report says the army is using a wide range of avenues, from brochures and magazines to CDs and DVDs, to recruit. It cites as a case in point a program named "Camouflage" which is targeting the 13-17 age groups. Britain is the only EU state to recruit military personnel as young as 16. The report challenges claims by the MoD that it does not recruit from school. "The Ministry of Defence’s youth policy contradicts this, describing military curricular activities in educational establishments as a 'powerful tool for facilitating recruitment especially if the skills developed through curricular activities have a direct bearing on military requirements'." Barry Donna, who served in the army for six years, offered an insight into the system. "The report here is particularly highlighting the case of vulnerable people who are going through the system at maybe 15, 16 years old, 17, 18 who I would suggest are not mature at that age," he told the BBC News Online. "I was 16 years old when I went through it. At 16 you can't join the police, can't drink alcohol, can't vote yet you can join up [the army]. Click to Read the Report in Full    Readers have left 11 comments.
A A:
Quote
Yes tell them how glamorous is to go and slaughter Muslims on behalf of some crazed warmongering politicians why don't you!!!
I am appalled at this type of rhetoric coming from our MOD.
(1)
2008-01-08 14:00:12
Rob:
Quote
Having seen some of the adverts,the point being made is correct.
the impression i was left with was join the army be a good samaritan and get a adrenalin rush.
(2)
2008-01-08 14:32:53
A A:
Quote
Having seen some of the adverts,the point being made is correct. — Robthe impression i was left with was join the army be a good samaritan and get a adrenalin rush. Exactly! When the reality is in a war zone it comes down to 'Kill or be Killed' as some ex-soldiers were saying. The recruitment video shows a games console controller pad alluding to it being as some sort of game.
(3)
2008-01-08 15:20:51
RSD:
Quote
Do any employers ever describe the less than attractive elements of a job to potential applicants?
Were every employer required to describe in graphic detail the potential nagative elements of work and the working environment it is highly likely that the very people we depend upon to generate the wealth we need would simply disengage and chose low risk / threat careers. How often are young people told that social workers are more likely to be assaulted and injured than policemen? Or that construction work is the most dangerous in the country? Drawing comparisons between Uk and the rest of the EU omits the fact that conscription is still widespread and that UK participates in military activities than any other EU state - especially active peace keeping roles. This report is more of the stupidity that the "liberal left" has to offer. BTW although 16 years can join the army in UK that are not sent to war. It is also untrue that no other EU state recruits minors, Austria, France and Hungary have cadets of 16 years of age.
(4)
2008-01-08 18:27:08
Abu Haadiya:
Quote
what about when the people they are fighting, lets call them Al Qaida or Taliban etc, also use their youth to defend themselves from much more superior military power? why the hysterical crys of 'grooming children', 'indoctrinating the young'etc etc. Why the double standards? Where is the moral differance between the muslim youth who fight others in order to further their political goals, and the British soldier who fights to protect the interests of the zionists and Americans?
(5)
2008-01-08 20:14:13
azaad:
Quote
RSD
What daft analogies you draw: a social worker/construction worker etc can leave immediately if he/she doesn't like the work. You should be condemning the grooming of children, who cannot possibly make an informed decision. In the last 60+ years no country where UK troops have fired shots in a theatre of war -- no country has attacked (or threatened) the UK militarily. So these children must be told: you may find yourself killing innocent children (even younger than you) but don't worry, we'll just call it 'collateral damage'. Is that ok? You may sign-up to serve 'Queen & Country', but that's just said to make you feel proud of your country. If we send you to a (concocted) war to protect Israel, sorry, you just have to go. Unless an individual is at least 18, they should not be recruited for wars, and certainly not where the fighting isn't solely for the sake of Queen & Country. (And don't forget all those fey priests in flowing frocks -- aren't they also just too sibilant? (every syllable accompanied with a hissing sound)-- who also glamourise war, forgetting wholely a central (but completely untenable) tenet of their faith: 'turn the other cheek')
(6)
2008-01-08 23:26:19
RSD:
Quote
Azaad
Actually if you are a soldier you can resign from the army but it is more convoluted than resigning from a civilian job. In the past it has required you buying your way out of your contract. Now there are options to transfer to civil employment if the army wants your skills. The reality is that UK is party to a wide range of military treaties where the UK is bound to collaborate with other countries that may be threatened. Are you really saying that when the UK fought Chinese communists in Malaya ( a Muslim country) that it was wrong to do so and should have let the communists win? Or perhaps UK should have allowed the Argentinian miliraty dicatorship take-over the Falklands? Or perhaps UK forces should have let the Northern Irish descend into open civil war? In addition UK is one of the most effective countries when it comes to UN action. It was UK driven action that eventually stopped Serbia when the rest of the world stood by and watched thousands of Muslims and others being murdered. To continue this role UK has to have an effective army and that therefore needs soldiers. As far as I understand it 16 years olds are not recruited to combat units but are recruited to fill the need for trained technical and logistical forces. It should also be remembered that for each combat soldier there are 3 soldiers providing support, so the idea that every recruit is bound for the battlefield is wrong. As for fighting wars on behalf of Israel this is an absurdity. The only time that UK forces have been engaged in any of the Arab-Israeli wars was in 1948 when the RAF flew support for the Egtptians in Sinai. There is of course an alternative to the volunteer force that we currently have and that is an army composed of conscripts. Perhaps if everyone male & female were drafted into the army and had then to serve in Iraq and Afganistan it would bring about a more informed debate about UK's role. The issue of conscentious objection would of course be raised, and like my grandfather you can be a CO and then simply serve as a medic providing for all injured people in war.
(7)
2008-01-09 09:06:01
azaad:
Quote
RSD
You make some good points/observations. However, my objection is to the glamourising of war &/or grooming children. Note how, unlike previuos war reports (even the poems of Wifred Owen) nowadays the MOD 'embeds' (i.e. muzzles/castrates) reporters. We are not shown the limbs/heads/torsos of men, women, and children blown to bits. All we are shown are super-duper ultra thingamies zapping this and that from a remote (and cowardly) distance. Hence we see a sanitised, glamourised view of action. The forces lure in either toffs (from Public Schools - where to relieve sheer boredom of boarding, cadet forces dress up and play at soldiers) with the prospect of ruling (as officers) over the lumpen proletariat, or from the dregs of council estates with jobs where there no hope of getting one otherwise.
(8)
2008-01-09 10:33:19
James:
Quote
Azad, you are wrong.You would do well to read the recent comments of Ross Kemp in the Mirror recently.He pulls no punches concerning the tragedies he witnessed.
The point about the article is the people who wrote it are Quakers, an anti war but also anti military organisation. Their opinion is always biased. Arguably like the way for instance media reporting in say the Mail concerning UK Muslims can be biased as it dwells on the bad and ignores the good.
(9)
2008-01-09 13:20:47
TeirdeZ:
Quote
Azaad — RSDActually if you are a soldier you can resign from the army but it is more convoluted than resigning from a civilian job. In the past it has required you buying your way out of your contract. Now there are options to transfer to civil employment if the army wants your skills. The reality is that UK is party to a wide range of military treaties where the UK is bound to collaborate with other countries that may be threatened. Are you really saying that when the UK fought Chinese communists in Malaya ( a Muslim country) that it was wrong to do so and should have let the communists win? Your allusion to the political ideal of saving the unknowing from their ignorance with "humanitarian" war hardly justifies propagating for another such war by ameliorating a profession that is all about killing. I'm also minded most South East Asian countries did have indigenous commie movements at that time. Or perhaps UK should have allowed the Argentinian miliraty dicatorship take-over They did. Or perhaps UK forces should have let the Northern Irish descend into open civil war? You suggest the closed civil war of the past century has made Northern Ireland more prosperous? In addition UK is one of the most effective countries when it comes to UN action. It was UK driven action that eventually stopped Serbia when the rest of the world stood by and watched thousands of Muslims and others being murdered. Humbug. That was a multilateral conflict. Many people on all sides were killed. The UK helped pick a scape-goat. Congrats! To continue this role UK has to have an effective army and that therefore needs soldiers. "The UK has previously engaged in attack wars on several occasions and therefore needs soldiers so that they may wage more war in the future." You piss me off. There is of course an alternative to the volunteer force that we currently have and that is an army composed of conscripts. Perhaps if everyone male & female were drafted into the army and had then to serve in Iraq and Afganistan it would bring about a more informed debate about UK's role. The facts as stand today is that the UK deliberately engaged in an attack war against a nation which had no means of defending themselves properly. On top of that, once the mission was completed, the nation that was attack has been put in a position where it, like Northern Ireland, is not in a civil war because they're occupied, but also not in piece because someone wrecked all the infrastructure, put in a corrupt and biased government, made up silly laws that will hinder them from ever having a functioning economy and on top of that randomly executes people. Huzzah! Banzai! The issue of conscentious objection would of course be raised, and like my grandfather you can be a CO and then simply serve as a medic providing for all injured people in war.
(10)
2008-01-10 05:22:38
James:
Quote
"Or perhaps UK should have allowed the Argentinean military dictatorship take-over
They did." Er no they did not. The Falkland Islanders had their own government returned to them and the Argentinean aggressors were defeated. Your comments about Northern Ireland are really not worth commenting on. Peace there was achieved after the Army contained the terrorists. I know I was there. And it was a civil war. The subject at hand is the bias of the Quaker report on the military, not your plain silly views.
(11)
2008-01-11 12:26:55
|
Search MPACUK.org
Latest Discussions
Recommended Books
