Good points Ed, Yes we are part of the Mil-Ind Complex, but that is not the only thing we are part of. Our involvement does shape us, but it is not to sole determinant of what we are or are becoming. So yes, let's be vigilant and continue to put our efforts into being better. The global war against the Mil-Ind Complex and the neo-conservative free-market capitalism multi-national corporate agenda work its way through our media and we must think hard to shape new national regulation and create the global governance mechanisms necessary.
This is our schizophrenic reality. You have labeled this well. It projects both positive and negative intentions and produces positive and negative results. For my part this is the real war. The difference between the US, the UK and Russion being in Afghanistan and Canada being there, is that Canada is not (and not seen to be) an empire builder/protector. Canada has and continues to do good work in Kosovo/Bosnia. What we learn there (as human, cultural and knowledge capital) we take home to help us build a single multi-cultural entity. Peace-keepers to be credible and effective must be robustly combat-capable. But again it is difficult to perceive Canada as building an oil empire in Afghanistan. Yes the American's like to think that Canadian's are good at 'cleaning windows'. And in fact we are. Are we making efforts to bring stability and civil society that will be ripe for easier exploitation by other global powers? Perhaps. But when I think of General Dallaire, and the other military people I have met personally who have been deployed in Afghanistan and worse, I think there are far more of those compassionate capabilities you attribute to Jeanne Vanier than mo! st people would think. They are real people, Canadians like you and I, most (99%) of these people (that I've met) did not join up to become killers (besides numerous studies indicate that 80% soldiers will not shoot their weapons at adversaries), they joined up for many different reasons and all the one's I've spoken to are proud of Canada's peace support engagement. That said, there is a military mindset (actually a fairly human one that want's to keep up with the Joneses), that wants to been seen with respect as a military capability. Apologies if I seem overly protective of the CF, because normally I am pretty virulently critical of US foreign policy and the corosive Mil-Ind Complex. It's just that Canada is not an empire builder, but of course as a trading nation we are complicit in the hegemony of the Developed world. We are not innocent, but neither are we appropriately tarred with the same brush. john John Verdon Sr. Strategic HR Analyst Directorate Military Personnel Force Development Department of National Defence Major-General George R. Pearkes Building 101 Colonel By Drive. Ottawa Ontario K1A 0K2 voice: 992-6246 FAX: 995-5785 email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Searching for the pattern which connects.... and to know the difference that makes a difference" Sapare Aude -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, 29 October, 2007 15:10 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: "04 - DWAN E-MAIL SYSTEM DETECTED POSSIBLE "SPAM"/CEC DU RED DETECTION PROBABLE D'UN "POURRIEL"" :Futurework Digest, Vol 47, Issue 32 Send Futurework mailing list submissions to futurework@fes.uwaterloo.ca To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit *http://fes.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to [EMAIL PROTECTED] You can reach the person managing the list at [EMAIL PROTECTED] When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of Futurework digest..." Today's Topics: 1. Military-industrial, etc. (Ed Weick) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2007 15:09:15 -0400 From: "Ed Weick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: [Futurework] Military-industrial, etc. To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Hi John, I don't agree that we can think of Canadians as not being part of the military-industrial complex. Yes indeed, the locus of the complex is in the US and the UK may be into it more heavily than we are, but as in the case of globalization we are part of its widespread web. We are a supplier of many of the goods and services that have fed the growth of the complex -- oils, metals, minerals and human resources. If I recall correctly, the uranium that went into the A-bombs that were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was mined at Port Radium on Great Bear Lake. The issue we Canadians are faced with today is how to avoid becoming completely schizophrenic. How do we continue to maintain our high moral values, our notions of being peacekeepers and resolvers of complex international issues while at the same time participating in foreign adventures and continuing as a leading supplier of commodities, such as oil and metals, to the US, the leader of the adventures? Schizophrenics can be very dangerous and the US has become schizophrenic, its political, military and industrial leaders pulling it one way and much of the populace wanting to go the other. There is a huge tension. Do we want to be like that? Are we already? I agree that we cannot withdraw from Afghanistan. For whatever reason we are there, we are there. To withdraw now would result in instability and probably chaos. But we do have to think of what it's going to cost us. A major reason for the collapse of the Soviet Union was its war on Afghanistan. We will at some point have to consider the costs of dumping our resources and human capital into what may be an increasingly deepening pit. The US may be able to continue its adventure in Iraq, but given the declining dollar and its many other problems, one has to wonder how long. I also agree that the Canadian Forces are very good at developing human capital. But we do have to think about what kind of human capital the future world will need. Having listened to an interview with Jeanne Vanier this morning, I wonder if the kind of we may need is not so much the kind that plans, organizes and directs as the compassionate kind that gets down there where the poor, starving and dirty people are and helps them improve their place in the world. We will need both, but my view of the military is that it is not equipped to produce the latter kind. However, I may be wrong. Ed ----- Original Message ----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, October 29, 2007 11:27 AM Subject: RE: "04 - DWAN E-MAIL SYSTEM DETECTED POSSIBLE "SPAM"/CEC DU RED DETECTION PROBABLE D'UN "POURRIEL"" :Re: [Futurework] Futurework Digest, Vol 47, Issue 19 Ed and Natalia and all, First off, the military-industrial-congressional complex is real and very much related to the nature of work in the US. What politician is not dependent on military money (for jobs for those they represent) or is there even one American doesn't know someone close with a job related to defence. And I wholeheartedly agree that this complex is more influential in shaping US foreign policy then probably any other single interest group. And while I fear the Harper government want to emulate our neighbor, I don't think the Canadian economy is so based (yes I've heard the news about Canada as the sixth largest arms seller, or something like that). There is a great deal to fear in the development of an integrated security approach, even in Canada's 3D (Defence, Diplomacy, Development) approach. But there is also a geat deal of sanity and benefit possible. As a futurist, I have always made the point that we need to develop a very sound, well thought out legislative framework to maitain the checks and balances necessary to a democracy. Today people are living longer, the CF is a tremendous developer of people (human capital), but they retire young and continue a career in the private sector, or sometime in the public. This means that a single person can in their long working life rise to senior levels in both public and private arenas integrating a great network of connections and interests. How do we as citizens and taxpayer continue to ensure a return on our substantial investments (human capital - knowledge, skill, judgment) throughout the productive working life of an individual, but also protect our democracy from the coercive forces of self-interest and corruption as many more areas of our economy are integrated within individual networks? This is an extremely serious question and concern. But it is not what Canadian military are doing in Afghanistan. Again, I agree that we should be vigilant, that there are corrupting agendas (and broader than just oil and poppy). But we are not the US, nor are we the UK. IF there is any credible military that can make the best of this situation - who would it be that would be, that would be better than Canada? There are two wars simultaneously being fought. The physical fight (western militaries, stakeholders, insurgents, opportunists, criminals, etc) and the moral fight (do find a way to bring stability and encourage institution building essential for civil society). While we can't do everything, we must do something. So yes, oil brings us to Afghanistan, and there is no economic equivalent for the West in Darfur, but that also doesn't negate that Afghanistan should be abandoned. If Afghanistan can be stabilized through Canadian influences, would that not help them be more independent that colonized by the US? With decent institutions to create a civil society, can't that help to ensure that it is Afghanistan the benefits as it should from its position in the oil production line? The problems of multinationals are everywhere, the solution is a global governance approach, a re-theorizing of the state (the EU is a great experiment in this regard). Technology has unleashed the multi-national corporation but it is also unleashing a power of transforming how work is organized - potentially self-organized (a la wiki), and so with the re-theorization of the state comes the re-theorization of what a corporation is and what are its guiding values (e.g. the documentary "The Corporation"). OK, I hope I've made myself clear. There is great evil in the world, included the psycho-pathology of corporations and the corruption of civil society. But police and military agencies will be necessary for the forseeable future. The world is complex and conflicting agendas will always be at work. We need - desperately need, new legislative frameworks, global institutions, governance mechanisms and transparency - beyond privacy. john John Verdon Sr. Strategic HR Analyst Directorate Military Personnel Force Development Department of National Defence Major-General George R. Pearkes Building 101 Colonel By Drive. Ottawa Ontario K1A 0K2 voice: 992-6246 FAX: 995-5785 email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Searching for the pattern which connects.... and to know the difference that makes a difference" Sapare Aude -----Original Message----- From: Ed Weick [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, 29 October, 2007 10:53 To: Verdon [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: "04 - DWAN E-MAIL SYSTEM DETECTED POSSIBLE "SPAM"/CEC DU RED DETECTION PROBABLE D'UN "POURRIEL"" :Re: [Futurework] Futurework Digest, Vol 47, Issue 19 I've stayed out of this one. Too much heat and too little light. However, perhaps Natalia has a point, though not one that is especially relevant on the Futurework list. Many decades ago President Eisenhower warned us about the "military-industrial complex" and back during the late stages of the Cold War (Reagan era?) senior American officials, including Paul Wolfowitz, warned that the US had better stake out a central position in the Middle East or the Soviet Union would. The issue in the latter case was oil. Perhaps, in the form of potential oil and gas pipeline routes, it was also an issue in the war in which the USSR exhausted its economy in fighting the Islamic fundamentalist Mujahideen, who were supported by the US at the time. Like the Taliban and the bad guys in Iraq, the Mujahideen were also called "insurgents", but they were the right kind of "insurgents". I'd suggest that there is a military-industrial complex and that it carries an enormous amount of weight in determining what decisions are made nationally, including the kind of work people do, and internationally, the military operations that are undertaken. There is a huge weapons industry. Why make weapons if you're not going to use them? And to use them, you need soldiers. And to justify it all you need to make the public feel good about what is being done in its name. Hey, we're going after the bad guys! Creates a lot of work, so maybe it is relevant to the Futurework list after all. Ed ----- Original Message ----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, October 29, 2007 9:40 AM Subject: Re: [Futurework] Futurework Digest, Vol 47, Issue 19 Natalia, I know a number of people who have served in Afghanistan - both civilian and military. None of these Canadian are propagandists and have told their story forthrightly. Yes terrible things have happened, but Canada is not there for the oil, nor because they are servants of the US. Afghanistan is a complicated and complex situation with many agendas, stakeholders, opportunists of all stripes - including criminals and zealots. What Canadians are doing is working toward creating conditions for peace, order and good government. A friend Col Mike Capstick served on the Strategic Advisory Team for six month. This man is very smart, tough, and very decent. see www.uregina.ca/gspp/news/IntInsight_capstick.pdf Natalia, there are many real conspiracies, and there is lots of truth to what you say, but you cannot simply paint everyone - military people included with this brush. Bad things are being done, but equally importantly Good things are also being done and I think what Canada is doing is on the whole much more good - and has great potential (given endurance of the international community) for long term improvement in the Afghan situation and in the way we use our military. The greatest weakness today, is the horrible lack of political strategy. Read Rupert Smith's book, "The Utility of Force" *http://www.amazon.com/Utility-Force-Rupert-Smith/dp/0713998369 In his opening remarks, Smith provocatively states, "war no longer exists." Of course, he does not mean that mass organized violence has ended; rather, he refers to the end of large-scale industrialized warfare characterized by the use of massive tank columns supported by the application of intensive air power. Smith, who spent 40 years in the British army, including service in the first Gulf War, Bosnia, and Northern Ireland, maintains the development of nuclear weapons has essentially made such warfare obsolete. Current and especially future wars fought by Western powers are likely to be low-intensity conflicts, often waged against stateless opponents. Because it is not practical or even possible to win these struggles through the application of purely military force, Smith insists a revolution, or new paradigm, must occur in our conception of these struggles. As a start, we must understand the political context in which our adversaries act. Once identified, politica! l objectives must always drive the military efforts, Smith insists, even at the expense of "sound" military strategy. Jay Freeman john John Verdon Sr. Strategic HR Analyst Directorate Military Personnel Force Development Department of National Defence Major-General George R. Pearkes Building 101 Colonel By Drive. Ottawa Ontario K1A 0K2 voice: 992-6246 FAX: 995-5785 email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Searching for the pattern which connects.... and to know the difference that makes a difference" Sapare Aude -----Original Message----- From: Darryl or Natalia [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, 27 October, 2007 00:28 To: Verdon [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [Futurework] Futurework Digest, Vol 47, Issue 19 John, You and Romeo Dellaire are the only two examples I can think of that speak to me of leadership within the Canadian army. Not to say there aren't many more like you in Canada, I know there are--much as I'm aware of many in the US, Great Britain, and elsewhere. Many wonderful people serve, but their good intentions are rarely implemented or heard by the masses--the will of the world's elite ensuring that military primarily pursue control of oil and the nations who have it. It is mostly their voice that we hear. Where is yours being broadcast? Upon the paid participants at global conferences for other soldiers? The UN is barely effective, and seemingly ignoring patent genocides. Where are vital peacekeeping actions for the Sudanese people who have been in dire need? Iraq, Palestine and Lebanon need help, not more combative troops. Those should be a priority today, not helping the US to build oil pipelines and ensure contracts for US oil related industries. Defending hu! m! an rights is one thing, but our army is primarily helping oppressive US concerns. Canada has followed the US to Afghanistan to secure Unical's oil pipeline construction, which the US cannot complete because the Taliban, who it used to support enthusiastically, are disrupting its construction. They are disrupting it because they had originally given the contract to a S. American concern, and the US invaded because they were dissed and overlooked for the prize--they were not originally there to catch Bin Laden, nor to help suffering Afghans. I'm confident that once Unical's construction is complete, the US will withdraw most of its forces. Canada has been assisting the US with its hegemony and interference. Likely thousands of Afghans are dead because of Canadian participation in the US led war. We just haven't heard how many are casualties or injured due to Canadian involvement. It is a fact that 4/5 Cdn. soldiers there are involved in active combat, though I would speak highly of those involved in actually helping citizens. Neither US, British, n! or Canadian forces care to make note of how many Afghans they kill. Only their own are significant. Perception amongst Afghans of Western forces is that they are unconcerned with and are a direct threat to civilian safety. Add to that their increasing starvation because of this imposed war. The problem is that the poppy crop, almost eliminated by previous groups, has become a full blown industry thanks to the US and Canadian interference. Burning the crops, rather than legalizing them for medicinal markets, hurts civilians, not Taliban. They need irrigation for other types of crops in order to diversify. Most Afghans want the Karzai gov't to negotiate with the Taliban, particularly in Kandahar. Afghanistan is destined to become another Iraq. DU is being used, and infrastructure, although partly rebuilt in key pipeline construction sites, is crumbling in most other parts of the country. War has overcome the Afghan economy. Tell me this is about defence. I feel compelled to address some points below, in italics: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Having worked in the Canadian Defence establishment for 10 years, the overwhelming amount of effort and thinking and commitment of everyone I have ever encountered in the Canadian Forces, is on defence!!!! In all of the international conferences that involved other militaries, the US and perhaps Russia are an anomaly. The overwhelming number of recruits (most NCMs) are high school educated (or less) and within their careers they receive tremendous amounts of training, this makes the CF one of Canada's pre-eminent human capital developers.Training would be intrinsic to such a career. But this does not address concerns for recruitment amongst people psychologically unfit to handle weaponry. Selecting high school graduates (or less?) does not mean the same as carefully screening for psychological fitness. By the way, when recruiting, it would be nice to see some honesty around DU. One of the army's reps on the CBC was trying to tell the public there is no safety issue therein. Guess he's not part of your immediate team. The US, who gives me most concern, recruits country bumpkins with little future, many criminals and drug addicts. A couple of months training and they're shipped out, over and over again. You may consider them (and Russia) an anomaly, but they are the current world model, and the world military has chiefly been reacting to or following their lead. Canada crossed the peace keeping line to support them in Afghanistan, so, I don't know what you're discussing at these conferences, but it isn't what Rick Hillier is demonstrating. Yes there are exceptions - e.g. somalia, but let's be clear this was an exception and reflected a failure of leadership. Having met General Dellaire personally, (in fact it was only when I met him did I truly realize what a 'leader' really was), I know in my bones that there is less thirst for blood in the CF than there is in the general population.Er, if you say so. After all, they do sign up for required killing. As well, no problems in the homes, where domestic abuse is higher than average. But we are taking about how soldiers behave once they go to an occupied country, not how they behave on home soil. And, apart from Afghanistan, Canadian forces haven't been all that active in international killing in recent decades, so I'm sure statistics would confirm your bone-deep belief. Natalia, you are a smart and extremely well informed person. But in this rant you are wrong to generalize to all militaries (modern ones of established states) the behavior of the US.Yes, you're right. And to Iran, whose army has been chiefly defensive, I apologize. And to the Finns, and Swiss. Could you please inform me of any major invading armies stationed anywhere there are significant oil reserves conducting strictly defensive and peaceful activities? There is a conflict in the world and it is those who seek to control by propagandizing fear and those who seek peace, order and good government. The most fundamental rule of the a modern military in a democracy is to obey its civil government and for this they are to be praised, the blame rests not on them but on our governments.I'm not certain who you consider to be propagandizing fear, and who you think is actually seeking peace. OK. We should praise the US military for killing hundreds of thousands unnecessarily in Iraq, displacing over four million more. Civilians dissed Bush, not Saddam. Soldiers are helpless pawns of government, and must make those immoral decisions because they'd all be shot by their commanding officers for refusing to kill innocents. Got it. I seem to remember something about international war crimes, but it's a distant memory because the urgency for oil overcomes such concerns, and government orders are what they're really following when decisions to needlessly kill, rape, or otherwise injure civilians are conducted in theater. Do Pentagon officials serve and obey the directions of their government in exempting themselves from financial accountability? Did democratic government ask them to lose $3.3 trillion by the eve before 9/11, and not even try to find it or make amends beyond the repositioning of Dov Zakheim? Enron, big problem, Pentagon, no problem! I found it unconscionable, and disturbing that Canada has followed this lawless organization nonetheless. What I'd hoped to discuss was your latter point, given that hearts and minds of occupied territories are never won these days. What future can there be for a military that does not reflect the will of the un-manipulated people, and only reflects the lawless will of the elite? That they have a difficulty resisting 'unlawful' command is true,but that difficulty hits equally the entire public service, the executive, the population and our elected representatives. In Canada we spend less tha 2% of GDP (one of the lowest in the G8 and Nato) on our military and 55% of that budget, is spent on our personnel. Our $18 billion defence budget is 27% higher than pre-9/11, 6th highest in NATO, and higher than our cold war spending when adjusted for inflation. We are now 13th in the world for military spending, and somehow, under a defence-motivated military, $100 million a month is being spent on mostly combat in Afghanistan. By March of 2008, we will have spent 7.2 billion on it. 40% on any one country other than our own is too much. This is alleged defence spending on securing US oil industry control. You and I both know what $100 mil. per month could be doing for Canada, the Sudanese, or for civilians in Afghanistan. This waste would not have been possible without US elite's inspiration and meddling. What are the allegedly peaceful forces doing to stop the chief aggressor so peace can be realized? Natalia Kuzmyn John Verdon Sr. Strategic HR Analyst Directorate Military Personnel Force Development Department of National Defence Major-General George R. Pearkes Building 101 Colonel By Drive. Ottawa Ontario K1A 0K2 voice: 992-6246 FAX: 995-5785 email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Searching for the pattern which connects.... and to know the difference that makes a difference" Sapare Aude -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, 26 October, 2007 15:15 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Futurework Digest, Vol 47, Issue 19 Send Futurework mailing list submissions to futurework@fes.uwaterloo.ca To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit **http://fes.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to [EMAIL PROTECTED] You can reach the person managing the list at [EMAIL PROTECTED] When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of Futurework digest..." Today's Topics: 1. Re: Universal soldier? (Cordell, Arthur: ECOM) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2007 15:15:12 -0400 From: "Cordell, Arthur: ECOM" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: [Futurework] Universal soldier? To: "Darryl or Natalia" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "futurework" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" This article has no place on FW. What does it have to do with the future of work? If you wish to slam armies and the concept of war then go to another site. If you want to slam Israel then, again, go to another site. Arthur ________________________________ From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Darryl or Natalia Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2007 9:05 PM To: futurework Subject: [Futurework] Universal soldier? What is the future of work in the military to be? Most now fail to see a future force of peace keepers, since it's pretty obvious that controlling the oil industry and acquiring oil for the US are the reasons for most budget allocations. But where does that leave those who would otherwise have enlisted for a career of defense training, when the actual reason for their services is merely one of overcoming and overpowering? Billions are spent on military technological improvements that result in more destruction, deaths and displacement than conventional combat ever did. An emphasis on killing, rather than actual defense, could account for the most obvious failures. In World Wars I and II, soldiers and citizens alike believed they were defending our freedom. Far fewer came back from these wars so damaged psychologically. For Viet Nam, Korea, the Gulf and Iraq wars there has been a deployment of so-called freedom fighters with little to defend but the psychotic egos of the ruling elite. Add to it that the instruments of destruction are now much more sophisticated, and far more harmful to all life forms. Today's soldiers are alarmingly more disassociated from the human targets upon whom misery is inflicted because of this sophistication of weaponry. When an army recruits its troops, what checks are in place to prevent Joe/Jill Psycho from joining the ranks of "defenders"? How many different qualifying tests does he/she take? And once enlisted, what restraints are ensuring that defense, rather than offense, be the primary motivator for staying in the ranks? It's rather a silly question, isn't it, because civilians aren't usually being protected in these current wars, as evidenced by the high casualties, costly mercenary protection for officials only, and Iraq's billion dollar "Green Zone", isolated from any civilian interaction. My deduction, by the recent wars' outcomes and horror stories, is that offense is the operative motivation in modern warfare. I realize the military has some expenditures on personnel who generate beneficial human resources studies and policies, but these outlays, retained primarily for the sake of having public relations reps who can actually field questions, are utterly dwarfed by egregious budgets directed at wiping out the so-called enemy at any expense. With such a pervasive attitude, it's no wonder we have soldiers who are either freshly enlisted or grow to be wholly dangerous. An Israeli psychologist blames Israeli soldiers' immoral and criminal behaviour on boredom and poor training. This is an insane explanation! She's an apologist not only for incompetent army recruiters and top command, but for sadistic individuals who must never be allowed to hide behind the stress of boredom to justify relief at the expense of human life or injury of any type. >From everything I've ever read about soldiers anywhere they're stationed, there are always too many amongst them who believe in their right to be brutal -- and most of them get away with it because of commanding officers' implicit approval or fellow troops covering for them. Israel boasts of having the most humane troops in the world in their recruitment efforts. The article below certainly disputes that claim. How many armies of any global significance are left that can define their jobs as being ones which consist strictly of defense? The Pentagon's budget, the US's most crippling, undergoes scant approval, checks or balances. It reaps the largest share of the treasury, thereby establishing its department (if we measure in terms of dollars) as the most revered, above health and welfare, environment, education, etc. Yet the department does nothing beneficially significant for anyone anywhere (excepting the elites' portfolios) and generates more harm than could ever be imagined. One might well conclude that waste by warring is what Americans most value, and that the future expenditures of their nation are assuredly focused upon continued psychotic activity, if not for the painful fact that the immoral self-serving ruling elite actually have control of how the treasury is spent. Same goes for Israel. The future of work, by reason of treasury allocations, is in killing or overcoming, first and foremost. Yet there's no money in it but for the elite and the mercenaries. So, national troops are either initially misled into believing they are developing a career defending their nation, are being recruited against their will, or are being selected specifically because they possess criminal and immoral minds. You can't train that many troops to become immoral, can you? But you can recruit those who are potentially volatile, such as the many sickos and criminals recruited thus far, and then expose them to stressors the individuals might never have anticipated -- such as boredom, extreme heat, extreme vigilance, DU, abhorrence by civilians, and realization of the fact that their lives mean nothing to those really in command. This is the state of the military today. Its future is even more bleak, with projected urban wars. Perhaps that's where it will itself be overcome and forever disbanded. Until voters recognize they are being chronically manipulated into voting for yet another hawkish leader, the future of being a legal bully looks just "Bully". Natalia Kuzmyn Israel shaken by troops' tales of brutality against Palestinians A psychologist blames assaults on civilians in the 1990s on soldiers' bad training, boredom and poor supervision Conal Urquhart in Jerusalem Sunday October 21, 2007 The Observer <**http://*www.observer.co.uk> A study by an Israeli psychologist into the violent behaviour of the country's soldiers is provoking bitter controversy and has awakened urgent questions about the way the army conducts itself in the Gaza Strip and West Bank. Nufar Yishai-Karin, a clinical psychologist at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem, interviewed 21 Israeli soldiers and heard confessions of frequent brutal assaults against Palestinians, aggravated by poor training and discipline. In her recently published report, co-authored by Professor Yoel Elizur, Yishai-Karin details a series of violent incidents, including the beating of a four-year-old boy by an officer. The report, although dealing with the experience of soldiers in the 1990s, has triggered an impassioned debate in Israel, where it was published in an abbreviated form in the newspaper Haaretz last month. According to Yishai Karin: 'At one point or another of their service, the majority of the interviewees enjoyed violence. They enjoyed the violence because it broke the routine and they liked the destruction and the chaos. They also enjoyed the feeling of power in the violence and the sense of danger.' In the words of one soldier: 'The truth? When there is chaos, I like it. That's when I enjoy it. It's like a drug. If I don't go into Rafah, and if there isn't some kind of riot once in some weeks, I go nuts.' Another explained: 'The most important thing is that it removes the burden of the law from you. You feel that you are the law. You are the law. You are the one who decides... As though from the moment you leave the place that is called Eretz Yisrael [the Land of Israel] and go through the Erez checkpoint into the Gaza Strip, you are the law. You are God.' The soldiers described dozens of incidents of extreme violence. One recalled an incident when a Palestinian was shot for no reason and left on the street. 'We were in a weapons carrier when this guy, around 25, passed by in the street and, just like that, for no reason - he didn't throw a stone, did nothing - bang, a bullet in the stomach, he shot him in the stomach and the guy is dying on the pavement and we keep going, apathetic. No one gave him a second look,' he said. The soldiers developed a mentality in which they would use physical violence to deter Palestinians from abusing them. One described beating women. 'With women I have no problem. With women, one threw a clog at me and I kicked her here [pointing to the crotch], I broke everything there. She can't have children. Next time she won't throw clogs at me. When one of them [a woman] spat at me, I gave her the rifle butt in the face. She doesn't have what to spit with any more.' Yishai-Karin found that the soldiers were exposed to violence against Palestinians from as early as their first weeks of basic training. On one occasion, the soldiers were escorting some arrested Palestinians. The arrested men were made to sit on the floor of the bus. They had been taken from their beds and were barely clothed, even though the temperature was below zero. The new recruits trampled on the Palestinians and then proceeded to beat them for the whole of the journey. They opened the bus windows and poured water on the arrested men. The disclosure of the report in the Israeli media has occasioned a remarkable response. In letters responding to the recollections, writers have focused on both the present and past experience of Israeli soldiers to ask troubling questions that have probed the legitimacy of the actions of the Israeli Defence Forces. The study and the reactions to it have marked a sharp change in the way Israelis regard their period of military service - particularly in the occupied territories - which has been reflected in the increasing levels of conscientious objection and draft-dodging. The debate has contrasted sharply with an Israeli army where new recruits are taught that they are joining 'the most ethical army in the world' - a refrain that is echoed throughout Israeli society. In its doctrine, published on its website, the Israeli army emphasises human dignity. 'The Israeli army and its soldiers are obligated to protect human dignity. Every human being is of value regardless of his or her origin, religion, nationality, gender, status or position.' However, the Israeli army, like other armies, has found it difficult to maintain these values beyond the classroom. The first intifada, which began in 1987, before the wave of suicide bombings, was markedly different to the violence of the second intifada, and its main events were popular demonstrations with stone-throwing. Yishai-Karin, in an interview with Haaretz, described how her research came out of her own experience as a soldier at an army base in Rafah in the Gaza Strip. She interviewed 18 ordinary soldiers and three officers whom she had served with in Gaza. The soldiers described how the violence was encouraged by some commanders. One soldier recalled: 'After two months in Rafah, a [new] commanding officer arrived... So we do a first patrol with him. It's 6am, Rafah is under curfew, there isn't so much as a dog in the streets. Only a little boy of four playing in the sand. He is building a castle in his yard. He [the officer] suddenly starts running and we all run with him. He was from the combat engineers. 'He grabbed the boy. I am a degenerate if I am not telling you the truth. He broke his hand here at the wrist, broke his leg here. And started to stomp on his stomach, three times, and left. We are all there, jaws dropping, looking at him in shock... 'The next day I go out with him on another patrol, and the soldiers are already starting to do the same thing." Yishai-Karin concluded that the main reason for the soldiers' violence was a lack of training. She found that the soldiers did not know what was expected of them and therefore were free to develop their own way of behaviour. The longer a unit was left in the field, the more violent it became. The Israeli soldiers, she concluded, had a level of violence which is universal across all nations and cultures. If they are allowed to operate in difficult circumstances, such as in Gaza and the West Bank, without training and proper supervision, the violence is bound to come out. A spokeswoman for the Israeli army said that, if a soldier deviates from the army's norms, they could be investigated by the military police or face criminal investigation. She said: 'It should be noted that since the events described in Nufar Yishai-Karin's research the number of ethical violations by IDF soldiers involving the Palestinian population has consistently dropped. This trend has continued in the last few years.' ________________________________ avast! Antivirus <**http://*www.avast.com> : Outbound message clean. Virus Database (VPS): 071025-1, 10/25/2007 Tested on: 10/25/2007 6:05:23 PM avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2007 ALWIL Software. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: **http://fes.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/private/futurework/attachments/20071026/a6927c0a/attachment.html ------------------------------ _______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list Futurework@fes.uwaterloo.ca **http://fes.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework End of Futurework Digest, Vol 47, Issue 19 ****************************************** _______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list Futurework@fes.uwaterloo.ca *http://fes.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework --- avast! Antivirus: Inbound message clean. Virus Database (VPS): 071025-1, 10/25/2007 Tested on: 10/26/2007 1:05:12 PM avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2007 ALWIL Software. *http://www.avast.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------- avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean. Virus Database (VPS): 071026-0, 10/26/2007 Tested on: 10/26/2007 9:28:50 PM avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2007 ALWIL Software. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list Futurework@fes.uwaterloo.ca *http://fes.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: *http://fes.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/private/futurework/attachments/20071029/f6c16a07/attachment.html ------------------------------ _______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list Futurework@fes.uwaterloo.ca *http://fes.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework End of Futurework Digest, Vol 47, Issue 32 ****************************************** _______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list Futurework@fes.uwaterloo.ca http://fes.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
