Seattle high school seeks military recruiter ban

[davidmc]

"SEATTLE, May 24 — A high school in Seattle has become the first in the United States to tell the military that it is no longer welcome on campus because recruiters unfairly target poor inner-city teens to fight the U.S. war on terror."
"
''Who goes to fight wars? It's not George Bush's kids or senators' kids or Donald Rumsfeld's nieces and nephews,'' said Amy Hagopian, co-chairwoman of the Parent Teacher Student Association, PTSA, at Garfield High School.
''It's poor kids who fight wars,'' Hagopian said.
Earlier in May, the PTSA passed a resolution that said: ''Students should not be harassed by military recruiters... The U.S. military should not recruit in public schools.''
Despite that, the school has no legal authority to keep recruiters off campus. Under federal law, all school districts are required to release the names and contact information of students to military recruiters.
The issue at Garfield High is part of a national debate as the military struggles to replenish its numbers for the war on terror and the war in Iraq.
The U.S. Supreme Court said earlier this month it will consider whether the government can withhold funding from colleges that bar military recruiters.
''We offer a lot in terms of skill training and money for furthering education,'' said Douglas Smith, a spokesman for U.S. Army Recruiting Command in Fort Knox, Kentucky. The United States has relied on an all-volunteer military since the draft ended July 1, 1973.
Garfield is an inner-city high school where one-third of the 1,600 students are black in a city that is predominantly white and Asian.
On Monday, more than 100 high school and college students protested at three military recruiting offices in Seattle.
The National PTA, based in Chicago, supports the Seattle parent-teacher group's action. PTA President Linda Hodge said the resolution is a first step toward ''holding lawmakers accountable to their communities.''
Hodge said she knew of no other PTA group in the country that had asked military recruiters to stay away from school.
In September 2004, the Army had 6,128 recruiters. By the first week of May this year, that number had risen to 7,545.
''One of the impediments to recruiting is the ongoing war on terrorism,'' Smith said. ''With physical dangers and the risk of death, recruiters have to spend more time and energy talking through what enlisting now holds for an individual and their families.''

Your thought's It is apparent that "Bush's War" (Iraq) is destroying a military that took 30 years to rebuild, after 'Nam. Nice going ...not As an aside, I served in the 80's. My college has National Guard brochures @ every corner.
http://famulus.msnbc.com/famulusgen/reuters05-24-164400.asp?t=renew&vts=52420052035

 

[coolworx]

Your thought's It is apparent that "Bush's War" (Iraq) is destroying a military that took 30 years to rebuild,

Ummm... you forgot about the gutting of the military during the Clintoon's "peace dividend" [Thanks to Reagan making the final "check mate" in the Cold War].

 

[davidmc]

Ummm... you forgot about the gutting of the military during the Clintoon's "peace dividend" [Thanks to Reagan making the final "check mate" in the Cold War].

I did'nt forget nuthin'. People still enlisted in droves. Now that they would be fighting for Halliburton/KBR, they're having second thoughts about enlisting
Incidentally, what're you doing, VISITING New Hampshire? How did you get access to a BLUE STATE

 

[coolworx]

People still enlisted in droves.
....
Incidentally, what're you doing VISITING New Hampshire. How did you get access to a BLUE STATE

Ya, well that's what happens when you turn the Military Service into primarily a way to get college $$$. You get a bunch of folks who, when the rubber meets the road, don't have the conviction to be there.

Personally - being prior service myself - I believe we should cultivate the professional soldier by increasing payscales by a factor of 3 (in that way, you can attract a larger pool, and weed out the unfit).

As for Blue States - I live in Massachusetts. A state that is turning a paler blue with each democratic boondoggle, and liberal pander.

Hell... we might have the next Republican President in our Governor's Seat!
Run Mitt, RUN!

BTW, New Hampshire is traditionally a RED STATE. Ya know... those crazy "Live Free or Die" guntoters.

 

[Carrera]

If you ever get time, read the book Muhammad Ali's Greatest Fight. This deals with the Vietnam war, protest over the war, black civil rights and the political background to Vietnam.
At the time Ali made his protest, his lawyers pointed out that mostly black people and poor whites were being sent out to the front lines. A disproportionate number of blacks and poor whites were being killed in battle and the objection was also made that blacks were being drafted by all white boards.
Iraq is now the new Vietnam and it amazes me the U.S. would want to get bogged down in another ground campaign in a war that cannot be won (since you can't force democracy on a country with no real history of democracy). Yet, as you're aware, they are still sending poor whites and blacks out into Iraq where snipers are free to pick off recruits, lay road bombs and get at an open target in open spaces.
It may be the Iraq campaign will drag on for another 2 years till the tide of opinion changes, as it did in Vietnam. People are also going to be asking the question why Iraq exclusively has been linked to 9/11 and how the current occupation of Iraq is supposed to stop international terrorism.
One thing's for sure. At the time Ali refused induction he was loathed in the U.S.A. as a traitor, coward and draft dodger. Some years later on, they were inviting him to university campuses to speak to black and white students about Vietnam and opinion changed radically.

"SEATTLE, May 24 — A high school in Seattle has become the first in the United States to tell the military that it is no longer welcome on campus because recruiters unfairly target poor inner-city teens to fight the U.S. war on terror."
"
''Who goes to fight wars? It's not George Bush's kids or senators' kids or Donald Rumsfeld's nieces and nephews,'' said Amy Hagopian, co-chairwoman of the Parent Teacher Student Association, PTSA, at Garfield High School.
''It's poor kids who fight wars,'' Hagopian said.
Earlier in May, the PTSA passed a resolution that said: ''Students should not be harassed by military recruiters... The U.S. military should not recruit in public schools.''
Despite that, the school has no legal authority to keep recruiters off campus. Under federal law, all school districts are required to release the names and contact information of students to military recruiters.
The issue at Garfield High is part of a national debate as the military struggles to replenish its numbers for the war on terror and the war in Iraq.
The U.S. Supreme Court said earlier this month it will consider whether the government can withhold funding from colleges that bar military recruiters.
''We offer a lot in terms of skill training and money for furthering education,'' said Douglas Smith, a spokesman for U.S. Army Recruiting Command in Fort Knox, Kentucky. The United States has relied on an all-volunteer military since the draft ended July 1, 1973.
Garfield is an inner-city high school where one-third of the 1,600 students are black in a city that is predominantly white and Asian.
On Monday, more than 100 high school and college students protested at three military recruiting offices in Seattle.
The National PTA, based in Chicago, supports the Seattle parent-teacher group's action. PTA President Linda Hodge said the resolution is a first step toward ''holding lawmakers accountable to their communities.''
Hodge said she knew of no other PTA group in the country that had asked military recruiters to stay away from school.
In September 2004, the Army had 6,128 recruiters. By the first week of May this year, that number had risen to 7,545.
''One of the impediments to recruiting is the ongoing war on terrorism,'' Smith said. ''With physical dangers and the risk of death, recruiters have to spend more time and energy talking through what enlisting now holds for an individual and their families.''

Your thought's It is apparent that "Bush's War" (Iraq) is destroying a military that took 30 years to rebuild, after 'Nam. Nice going ...not As an aside, I served in the 80's. My college has National Guard brochures @ every corner.
http://famulus.msnbc.com/famulusgen/reuters05-24-164400.asp?t=renew&vts=52420052035

 

[davidmc]

Ya, well that's what happens when you turn the Military Service into primarily a way to get college $$$. You get a bunch of folks who, when the rubber meets the road, don't have the conviction to be there.

Personally - being prior service myself - I believe we should cultivate the professional soldier by increasing payscales by a factor of 3 (in that way, you can attract a larger pool, and weed out the unfit).

As for Blue States - I live in Massachusetts. A state that is turning a paler blue with each democratic boondoggle, and liberal pander.

Hell... we might have the next Republican President in our Governor's Seat!
Run Mitt, RUN!

BTW, New Hampshire is traditionally a RED STATE. Ya know... those crazy "Live Free or Die" guntoters.

There hasn't been a study but any American backed into a corner as you say- "when the rubber meets the road" will fight like a junk-yard dog.
As for the other part of your reply, checks & balances my friend-checks & balances. Case in point-N.Y.

 

[ghostpedal]

So they have barred students easy access to a way to further their education, get skills, and earn money. Maybe they will start scrutinizing which colleges show up to recruit, and ban those that they dislike. You cannot make someone join the military, it is up to the person. I wasn't poor, but I proudly served for 10 years, and afterwards became a teacher. The PTA, NEA, etc. do not have the students best interests in mind, but their own agendas. Kids should come first, and that isn't the way to do it. Another bone head move by educators who have no real idea of how the world outside academia works.

 

[jaguar75]

"SEATTLE, May 24 — A high school in Seattle has become the first in the United States to tell the military that it is no longer welcome on campus because recruiters unfairly target poor inner-city teens to fight the U.S. war on terror."
"
''Who goes to fight wars? It's not George Bush's kids or senators' kids or Donald Rumsfeld's nieces and nephews,'' said Amy Hagopian, co-chairwoman of the Parent Teacher Student Association, PTSA, at Garfield High School.
''It's poor kids who fight wars,'' Hagopian said.
Earlier in May, the PTSA passed a resolution that said: ''Students should not be harassed by military recruiters... The U.S. military should not recruit in public schools.''
Despite that, the school has no legal authority to keep recruiters off campus. Under federal law, all school districts are required to release the names and contact information of students to military recruiters.
The issue at Garfield High is part of a national debate as the military struggles to replenish its numbers for the war on terror and the war in Iraq.
The U.S. Supreme Court said earlier this month it will consider whether the government can withhold funding from colleges that bar military recruiters.
''We offer a lot in terms of skill training and money for furthering education,'' said Douglas Smith, a spokesman for U.S. Army Recruiting Command in Fort Knox, Kentucky. The United States has relied on an all-volunteer military since the draft ended July 1, 1973.
Garfield is an inner-city high school where one-third of the 1,600 students are black in a city that is predominantly white and Asian.
On Monday, more than 100 high school and college students protested at three military recruiting offices in Seattle.
The National PTA, based in Chicago, supports the Seattle parent-teacher group's action. PTA President Linda Hodge said the resolution is a first step toward ''holding lawmakers accountable to their communities.''
Hodge said she knew of no other PTA group in the country that had asked military recruiters to stay away from school.
In September 2004, the Army had 6,128 recruiters. By the first week of May this year, that number had risen to 7,545.
''One of the impediments to recruiting is the ongoing war on terrorism,'' Smith said. ''With physical dangers and the risk of death, recruiters have to spend more time and energy talking through what enlisting now holds for an individual and their families.''

Your thought's It is apparent that "Bush's War" (Iraq) is destroying a military that took 30 years to rebuild, after 'Nam. Nice going ...not As an aside, I served in the 80's. My college has National Guard brochures @ every corner.
http://famulus.msnbc.com/famulusgen/reuters05-24-164400.asp?t=renew&vts=52420052035

That's right...targeting inner city kids, if that even happens, and subjecting them to training, dicipline, a sence of pride, honor...yeah becasue the alternative is the street, broken homes, shattered dreams, weak support from state./federal programs and ultimately a drain on the tax payers during their time in prison. Yeah that argument makes a lot of sense!

 

[coolworx]

That's right...targeting inner city kids, if that even happens, and subjecting them to training, dicipline, a sence of pride, honor...yeah becasue the alternative is the street, broken homes, shattered dreams, weak support from state./federal programs and ultimately a drain on the tax payers during their time in prison. Yeah that argument makes a lot of sense!

Lessee here.... there are ~ 150k US troops in Iraq.
~ 2000 have been killed. About 1.3%.

I wonder, out of 150,000 inner city kids, how many end up dead from drugs and gangs?

 

[jhuskey]

Ok, let me think. I am not in favor of war for starters but high school level students should be aware enough to make their own choices. Do we need government protecting us from ourselves?
Frightening thought!
Muhammed Ali....Great boxer ...will never be a great writer and as I have said before a lot of middle class soldiers fought and died in Nam,not just the poor.
Does everything have to be made into a race issue?
Last point.
The US needs a strong military as much as ever and to think otherwise is insanity.We do not need to be at war to need a strong defense.
Some countries require military service!

 

[davidmc]

That's right...targeting inner city kids, if that even happens, and subjecting them to training, dicipline, a sence of pride, honor...yeah becasue the alternative is the street, broken homes, shattered dreams, weak support from state./federal programs and ultimately a drain on the tax payers during their time in prison. Yeah that argument makes a lot of sense!

I'm not saying the military is bad. I was in myself, under reagan. I'm saying that under bush they know that they will get a one-way ticket to Iraq-meet jesus-so that halliburton/kbr et al, can work unmolested. Bush's decisions have pushed the military to the extent that "weekend warriors" (National Guard) are doing "straight"-year stint's (leaving their families/careers in limbo), then being rotated back after a short hiatus. That doesn't sound like the military is "stretched thin" to you Are frist's, Bush's, Cheney's, Delay's neices/nephews/son's over there I think not. I didn't mention any Democrat's because Bush "pushed" the war in the 1st place. Well, now he's got his cake to eat, doesn't he.
www.icasualties.org

 

[davidmc]

Lessee here.... there are ~ 150k US troops in Iraq.
~ 2000 have been killed. About 1.3%.

I wonder, out of 150,000 inner city kids, how many end up dead from drugs and gangs?

How many of the troops-outside of the war dead you cited-are permanently disabled/disfigured I would wager 20-50X that.

 

[ryan_velo.]

You know what, I could do what some of my favorite musician friends did....Iggy Pop started jacking off durring his physical.......Great thinking Iggy Robbie in the Doors just told them he was gay.....What a capital idea As far I'm concerned I'm just a weakling ****** head case, right? I'll go to jail. I won't do it. I hope G.B. burns in hell [if there is such a place].

"SEATTLE, May 24 — A high school in Seattle has become the first in the United States to tell the military that it is no longer welcome on campus because recruiters unfairly target poor inner-city teens to fight the U.S. war on terror."
"
''Who goes to fight wars? It's not George Bush's kids or senators' kids or Donald Rumsfeld's nieces and nephews,'' said Amy Hagopian, co-chairwoman of the Parent Teacher Student Association, PTSA, at Garfield High School.
''It's poor kids who fight wars,'' Hagopian said.
Earlier in May, the PTSA passed a resolution that said: ''Students should not be harassed by military recruiters... The U.S. military should not recruit in public schools.''
Despite that, the school has no legal authority to keep recruiters off campus. Under federal law, all school districts are required to release the names and contact information of students to military recruiters.
The issue at Garfield High is part of a national debate as the military struggles to replenish its numbers for the war on terror and the war in Iraq.
The U.S. Supreme Court said earlier this month it will consider whether the government can withhold funding from colleges that bar military recruiters.
''We offer a lot in terms of skill training and money for furthering education,'' said Douglas Smith, a spokesman for U.S. Army Recruiting Command in Fort Knox, Kentucky. The United States has relied on an all-volunteer military since the draft ended July 1, 1973.
Garfield is an inner-city high school where one-third of the 1,600 students are black in a city that is predominantly white and Asian.
On Monday, more than 100 high school and college students protested at three military recruiting offices in Seattle.
The National PTA, based in Chicago, supports the Seattle parent-teacher group's action. PTA President Linda Hodge said the resolution is a first step toward ''holding lawmakers accountable to their communities.''
Hodge said she knew of no other PTA group in the country that had asked military recruiters to stay away from school.
In September 2004, the Army had 6,128 recruiters. By the first week of May this year, that number had risen to 7,545.
''One of the impediments to recruiting is the ongoing war on terrorism,'' Smith said. ''With physical dangers and the risk of death, recruiters have to spend more time and energy talking through what enlisting now holds for an individual and their families.''

Your thought's It is apparent that "Bush's War" (Iraq) is destroying a military that took 30 years to rebuild, after 'Nam. Nice going ...not As an aside, I served in the 80's. My college has National Guard brochures @ every corner.
http://famulus.msnbc.com/famulusgen/reuters05-24-164400.asp?t=renew&vts=52420052035

 

[snyper0311]

All I have to say in regards to this is, I am thankful for those young men and women who are serving our country. They are doing a service to our country, reguardless of who is running the show. I might not agree with the decisions of the IDIOT leader (Bush), but I do thank God every night that they are there for us, and not for Bush. They are the true heros of our nation and yes, we are riding on their backs. The fact is, they willingly gave up their lives for us. How many of us would be willing to make the same sacrifice? I did it for six years and do not regreat a single minute of my military service. Next time you see the young military person, thank them. Let them know that their actions are appreciated.

 

[roadhog]

"SEATTLE, May 24 — A high school in Seattle has become the first in the United States to tell the military that it is no longer welcome on campus because recruiters unfairly target poor inner-city teens to fight the U.S. war on terror."
"
''Who goes to fight wars? It's not George Bush's kids or senators' kids or Donald Rumsfeld's nieces and nephews,'' said Amy Hagopian, co-chairwoman of the Parent Teacher Student Association, PTSA, at Garfield High School.
''It's poor kids who fight wars,'' Hagopian said.
Earlier in May, the PTSA passed a resolution that said: ''Students should not be harassed by military recruiters... The U.S. military should not recruit in public schools.''
Despite that, the school has no legal authority to keep recruiters off campus. Under federal law, all school districts are required to release the names and contact information of students to military recruiters.
The issue at Garfield High is part of a national debate as the military struggles to replenish its numbers for the war on terror and the war in Iraq.
The U.S. Supreme Court said earlier this month it will consider whether the government can withhold funding from colleges that bar military recruiters.
''We offer a lot in terms of skill training and money for furthering education,'' said Douglas Smith, a spokesman for U.S. Army Recruiting Command in Fort Knox, Kentucky. The United States has relied on an all-volunteer military since the draft ended July 1, 1973.
Garfield is an inner-city high school where one-third of the 1,600 students are black in a city that is predominantly white and Asian.
On Monday, more than 100 high school and college students protested at three military recruiting offices in Seattle.
The National PTA, based in Chicago, supports the Seattle parent-teacher group's action. PTA President Linda Hodge said the resolution is a first step toward ''holding lawmakers accountable to their communities.''
Hodge said she knew of no other PTA group in the country that had asked military recruiters to stay away from school.
In September 2004, the Army had 6,128 recruiters. By the first week of May this year, that number had risen to 7,545.
''One of the impediments to recruiting is the ongoing war on terrorism,'' Smith said. ''With physical dangers and the risk of death, recruiters have to spend more time and energy talking through what enlisting now holds for an individual and their families.''

Your thought's It is apparent that "Bush's War" (Iraq) is destroying a military that took 30 years to rebuild, after 'Nam. Nice going ...not As an aside, I served in the 80's. My college has National Guard brochures @ every corner.
http://famulus.msnbc.com/famulusgen/reuters05-24-164400.asp?t=renew&vts=52420052035

It is certainly true that the Army has a tougher recruiting challenge now than a few years back. It is also true that the Reserves and NG have an even bigger challenge than that. It is also true that most (if not all) of this is a result of the war. HOWEVER, it is overly simplistic to assume that it is a result of policy decisions or the justification of the war itself alone. Every major, PROLONGED war in our history until now would have seen the same results in recruiting, probably to an even greater degree (given the incredibly higher death rates in conflicts such as WWII, Vietnam, etc, than we see now) if a draft had not been in use at the time. The fact is, ANY war scares people away from service. It's perfectly understandable and it would be naive to not expect it.

There are undoubtedly some crooked recruiters in that bunch of 7,145 that you cite, and they are a digrace and their actions are unforgiveable, but the recruiting institution as a whole and the vast majority of hard working NCO's out there recruiting for our nation is a just and noble cause. To limit their access to advertise these options to our citizens is dangerous and counter-productive. If a kid has other interests and desires, then he won't do it. If he needs college money etc, bad enough then he/she might do it, but it is no secret thorugh the recruiting process that wearing a uniform brings on a certain amount of risk. The options are there for them, and they are forced into nothing. Restricting access is to take options away from students and to take stability away from our security services. There is nothing for the anti-government/anti-military/ant-war people to complain about here. Simply say "no thank you" and walk away while appreciating the fact that some will say yes and continue our tradition of strong national security.

As for demographics....Why do people act surprised and point fingers when they realize certain backgrounds are represented more in the military than others? Look at the sacrifice and look at the monetary compensation. It is simple and not a surprise to anyone. The military pays enough to provide a relatively stable, comfortable life, but nowhere near enough to attract those with aspirations of real wealth. Again, why is this a surprise? I have been on active duty for 9 years now, spent over a year in Iraq, the Army paid for a top notch B.S. degree for me years ago, they are currently paying for my full-time pursuit of an M.S. from a top-5 school in my academic discipline, they will put me in assignments that utilize this discipline heavily upon my completion, and my family is comfortable and well-cared for. Although I am at the top of the military pay scales in relation to my time of service, I make less money than anyone in my immediate family by a decent amount, and quite a bit less than my peers in the Army who have gotten out in the past few years. I could be making more if I were not in, yet I think I have nothing to complain about. I choose to stay, but it should be no surprise that most would not, and it doesn't make them worse people either -- just different priorities and aspirations. Besides, I can still afford my bike!

Yes, the military is stretched thin right now and it is definitely busy times. It is also a time of war, and this should be expected. It's not clear how long we can keep it up at this pace with current military size. The real problem here is the size of our military going into these recent conflicts. Regardless of the recruiting challenges now, we could easily have a much larger force today if not for policy decisions over the past 15 years. Do you know how many 10's of thousands we have "forced" out of the military during the 90's in order to get to the smaller size we have now? That shrinking was a conscious decision and my contention is that it was a big mistake because our foreign policy has not matched that decision at any time. I don't care if our military is big or small, but I do care if it matches our foreign policy, and I don't think it has, and the current administration is only a small piece of that big puzzle. Even now we force some people out of the military ("retention control points", etc). There is a legal cap at which the military is allowed to operate. It's a difficult number to manage exactly with promotions, etc, but by and large we have been at that cap consistenly for years +/- a few thousand here and there.

There is much more at play here than recruiting numbers. And the recruiting numbers should not be a surprise to anyone given that we are at war. Until somebody attacks at our borders inspiring a national patriotic fervor, any war, no matter how just or unjust, will have similar results. It means relatively little in my opinion.

 

[roadhog]

You know what, I could do what some of my favorite musician friends did....Iggy Pop started jacking off durring his physical.......Great thinking Iggy Robbie in the Doors just told them he was gay.....What a capital idea As far I'm concerned I'm just a weakling ****** head case, right? I'll go to jail. I won't do it. I hope G.B. burns in hell [if there is such a place].

Relax buddy. Perhaps you haven't noticed that nobody is forcing you to do anything with regards to this. No need to tell anybody anything except a polite "no thank you". If you knew how hard they (recruiters) work for their modest wages, you would gladly offer them the respect of some civility.

 

[davidmc]

I wouldn't want to be a recruiter for security for Halliburton/KBR errr...I mean the Army.

 

[davidmc]

Sadly, this is an accurate portrayal of the situation

 

[Darjevon]

Sadly, this is an accurate portrayal of the situation

best political art you ever posted, mc.

 

[davidmc]

best political art you ever posted, mc.

Thank you my friend. Just spreading the "truth". Somebody's got to do it . Here's a coupla' more.