Pentagon Creating A Database Of Students

needacoolnickname writes "The Washington Post is reporting that the Pentagon is working with a marketing firm to create a database of students ages 16 through college to help them identify recruits. A little chuckle from the Pentagon in the article: '...anyone can opt out of the system by providing detailed personal information that will be kept in a separate suppression file. That file will be matched with the full database regularly to ensure that those who do not wish to be contacted are not, according to the Pentagon.'"

Comments

Article Content

[zoloto]

Coral Cached Article

Pentagon Creating Student Database
Recruiting Tool For Military Raises Privacy Concerns

By Jonathan Krim
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, June 23, 2005; A01

The Defense Department began working yesterday with a private marketing firm to create a database of high school students ages 16 to 18 and all college students to help the military identify potential recruits in a time of dwindling enlistment in some branches.

The program is provoking a furor among privacy advocates. The new database will include personal information including birth dates, Social Security numbers, e-mail addresses, grade-point averages, ethnicity and what subjects the students are studying.

The data will be managed by BeNow Inc. of Wakefield, Mass., one of many marketing firms that use computers to analyze large amounts of data to target potential customers based on their personal profiles and habits.

"The purpose of the system . . . is to provide a single central facility within the Department of Defense to compile, process and distribute files of individuals who meet age and minimum school requirements for military service," according to the official notice of the program.

Privacy advocates said the plan appeared to be an effort to circumvent laws that restrict the government's right to collect or hold citizen information by turning to private firms to do the work.

Some information on high school students already is given to military recruiters in a separate program under provisions of the 2002 No Child Left Behind Act. Recruiters have been using the information to contact students at home, angering some parents and school districts around the country.

School systems that fail to provide that information risk losing federal funds, although individual parents or students can withhold information that would be transferred to the military by their districts. John Moriarty, president of the PTA at Walter Johnson High School in Bethesda, said the issue has "generated a great deal of angst" among many parents participating in an e-mail discussion group.

Under the new system, additional data will be collected from commercial data brokers, state drivers' license records and other sources, including information already held by the military.

"Using multiple sources allows the compilation of a more complete list of eligible candidates to join the military," according to written statements provided by Pentagon spokeswoman Lt. Col. Ellen Krenke in response to questions. "This program is important because it helps bolster the effectiveness of all the services' recruiting and retention efforts."

The Pentagon's statements added that anyone can "opt out" of the system by providing detailed personal information that will be kept in a separate "suppression file." That file will be matched with the full database regularly to ensure that those who do not wish to be contacted are not, according to the Pentagon.

But privacy advocates said using database marketers for military recruitment is inappropriate.

"We support the U.S. armed forces, and understand that DoD faces serious challenges in recruiting for the military," a coalition of privacy groups wrote to the Pentagon after notice of the program was published in the Federal Register a month ago. "But . . . the collection of this information is not consistent with the Privacy Act, which was passed by Congress to reduce the government's collection of personal information on Americans."

Chris Jay Hoofnagle, West Coast director of the Electronic Privacy Information Center, called the system "an audacious plan to target-market kids, as young as 16, for military solicitation."

He added that collecting Social Security numbers was not only unnecessary but posed a needless risk of identity fraud. Theft of Social Security numbers and other personal in

Re:Article Content

[Locke2005]

The Pentagon's statements added that anyone can "opt out" of the system by providing detailed personal information that will be kept in a separate "suppression file." This database will also be known as the "FBI list of unpatriotic potential terrorists". We'll be keeping on eye on you, kid!

Re:Article Content

[Analogy Man]

Mod parent up. This wouldn't be unprecedented behavior either. In the Nam era they had spooks hanging out in the student unions taking notes on student activities. I read some extracts of some of that several years ago that came out under FIA.

If the terrorists extract another drop of blood for 20 years they have already won if you put stock in the most idiotic statement since 9/11 "They Hate Us For Our Freedom" - GWB Fall 2001. If this is REALLY what our administration believes why turn away from that chartet to adopt domestic policies to erode personal liberty, detain people (even US citizens) indefinitely without charge or trial, prop up undemocratic governments in Egypt and Lebanon for fear of "unfriendly" Islamist leaders that would likely win a free election?

Re:Article Content

[elrous0]

If a recruiter calls, tell him you're gay and ask him if he looks hot in his uniform. You'll never get another call.

-Eric

You are expendable pawns.

[grub]

to create a database of students ages 16 through college to help them identify recruits.

It will start similar to "Student A has a rich family, pass. Ahh.. Student B is lower-middle class, offer Student B a scholarship attached to a term in the Reserves." and end with "Draft Student B."

Re:You are expendable pawns.

[KD5YPT]

Well, like it or not, said Student B might actually welcome this scholarship if given the chance. It's not like they're going for mandatory enlistment, they just want to make more efficient recruitment system to raise the chance that they'll actually offer enlistment to people who might want them.

Of course, the extended amount of information they gather is worrying...

Re:You are expendable pawns.

[AKAImBatman]

Student A has a rich family, pass.

What nonsense. Rich kids join the military all the time (although usually as officers). Military experience is seen as an asset if you're planning to become politically active. Notice how much of a hot-button the issue was in Clinton, Bush, and Kerry's respective campaigns. While it's difficult to project the value of a military career out into the next generation of politicians, it has certainly helped both past and present office-runners.

Re:You are expendable pawns.

[wolfgang_spangler]

Dead on. And the poorer people eat it up. They see it as an avenue, perhaps the only one, from poverty. The government doesn't give two shits about them. They aren't likely to contribute much in taxes in their lifetime and they aren't likey to start a business which can help the economy. In short: they are a nuisance. The governments tell them how great they are and what a good thing it is to fight for your country. It's just glorified welfare with a bloody cost.
What a bunch of crap. The military can be a great way out of poverty. That doesn't mean joining the military will make you rich, but it:

• removes many from a lot of bad situations
• teaches important basics not installed in many poor, inner-city families
  • personal finance
  • personal responsibility
  • respect for others and yourself
  • honor
• provides excellent job skills for many
• can provide security clearances which translate into govt jobs

oh yeah, there is also that little added benefit of a trained military force being the only thing between you being able to post self-righteous crap like this and you being forced to obey the whims of some dictator.
And if you think Bush is a dictator, it really shows how ignorant and coddled you are in this country, protected by the troops which you disdain.

Re:You are expendable pawns.

[KaiserSoze]

Likely candidates will be devoutly and unquestioningly religious, be a member of Future Business Leaders of America and also boy/girl scouts.

Not likely. Can you see your local Colege Republicans running off to fight the war that they cheer? Have you seen any of the War Pundits, War Preachers, or War Politicians ask for all of their able-bodied supporters to enlist? No, you won't, because they're chickenhawks who want others to die for a plank of their party's platform (the War on Terra). Therefore, the ones to fight and die will continue to be almost exclusively lower to middle class with no particular religious affiliation.

Re:You are expendable pawns.

[Derkec]

Oh come on Slashdot, you're giving this guy high marks for commenting that 'devoutly and unquestioningly religous' or 'boy/girl scouts' are 'exactly the kinds of people we want getting shot ' and killed?

Terrible.

We do want patriotic people in the armed forces. But we need people who are bright, can understand local politics and react intelligently to the nasty tactical issues urban combat involves.

Re:You are expendable pawns.

[linzeal]

No one likes to admit it but the type of person who becomes a soldier is far more likely to be violence prone in all manners of life.

Google Army Rape sometime. All over the world and time the stories are many of women and girls being raped at the behest of institutionalized misogyny. If you do not believe that these sort of actions get carried home than lookup Domestic Violence in the Army. Soldiers are the last people I would want as friends, family or neighbors after my own exp. with the mentally unstable they send back to the US from god knows what hell.

Re:You are expendable pawns.

[theGreater]

Hey AC (and the rest of /.): when did being a person of faith, a boyscout, and FBLA become an object of ridicule? Why not add 4H and FFA in there as well, and anyone else that doesn't automatically yes-man your narrow-minded paranoia?

Re:You are expendable pawns.

[Shakrai]

What nonsense. Rich kids *used* to join during the Vietnam era, mostly in nice safe officer slots when the alternative was risk being drafted.

Safe officer slots? 7,877 officers of all grades from O-1 all the way up to O-8 died in Vietnam. Compare that to ~58,000 KIAs in the war. Officers made up 13.5% of the deaths in the war. I'd suspect that if you go back and research other wars in modern times that the percentage of officers killed/wounded in action is at least equal to if not greater then the percentage of officers in the armed forces overall.

In fact both commissioned and non-commissioned officers are more likely to be targeted by enemy action (especially snipers) then enlisted personal as a leaderless force is much less effective on the field of battle. If you knew anything about the military you'd know that.

You know you can be opposed to the war (Vietnam or Iraq) without putting down the military or the men and women serving in it. I have a whole lot more respect for them then I do for some nameless face running his mouth on Slashdot.

Re:You are expendable pawns.

[bynary]

I am "devoutly and unquestioningly religious" and have no interest in being a yes-man for any government group. Social and political anarchists are not exactly the people I want in the military anyways. I also agree that it's de rigueur to bash the political right/left/anyone who disagrees with you. What happened to E Pluribus Unum?

Re:You are expendable pawns.

[Marx_Mrvelous]

You forgot one very important bullet point:

• Die in combat in mass numbers during wars

Now, whatever you say about the benefits to poor people for joining the military, is it really fair that during wartime our most disadvantaged citizens are the ones who get killed? That's not a very nice option... "Be poor, or risk your life."

Re:You are expendable pawns.

[Princeofcups]

> We do want patriotic people in the armed forces. But we need people who are bright, can understand
> local politics and react intelligently to the nasty tactical issues urban combat involves.

Who in his right mind would moderate this insightful??? The military wants people who can take orders WITHOUT thinking. Officers maybe, but not grunts.

jfs

Re:You are expendable pawns.

[crabpeople]

"when did being a person of faith, ...*sic*... become an object of ridicule?"

the minute they said they believed an invisible man in the sky that manipulated world events?

Re:You are expendable pawns.

[lgw]

You seem to confuse the army of today with the army of WWII. The military has very little use for those who can merely follow orders and not think - at least, not as combat troops.

Every grunt involved in clearing a house in Iraq needs to be perceptive, creative, and analytical to do that job well. More than just reacting intelligently, the warfighter needs to be innovative, because repetition leads to getting killed.

But what would you know about it?

Re:You are expendable pawns.

[budgenator]

Who in his right mind would moderate this insightful???
Maybe somebody who has walked the walk, and it's obvious to be that you don't have a fucking clue who grunts are, what we do, or why we would take offense at a pansy-ass like you using the term. Taking orders without thinking maybe fine for soviet style penal-infantry, or Argentinian style shoot'em in the foot so they don't run military, but if you think that you can your personal ass out into mortal combat without thinking, feel free to demonstrate to me that I'm wrong. This isn't a video game, you don't get a "free life" for passing a stage.

Re:You are expendable pawns.

[Hrvat]

"Not thinking" is not the same as "Not questioning every order the instant it is given".

I believe that there are caveats in the Rules of Engagement or whatever the military rule book is, where the soldier is REQUIRED not to obey the order.

It is obvious that you have not been in the military. The majority of thinking goes on down on the team and squad level. Usually the officers will say, "Take that bridge/street/group of houses". The squad/team leader (NCO usually) will draw up the plan of assault etc.

You can't go into combat if you can't rely on people around you to think, evaluate and act upon situations as they present themselves.

You also can't go into combat saying "WTF. I don't want to go down that street. Why do I have to go down that street?" when there is another team 2 blocks over that needs someone to flank the MG that has it pinned.

The time to question orders is up top, at the boundary between the politicians and the top brass, not on the front line.

Re:You are expendable pawns.

[Shakrai]

What I was trying to say is that rich kids selectively occupied safer-than-average positions, such as journalist, or flight instructor, or defending against the dreaded mexican air force.

That's a bit more fair and it certainly seems to hold true in the current Administration. Has anybody of importance still in the Bush Administration served in combat? Has anybody even served? Who was the only person in the first Bush Administration that most people looked up too and did he not serve and warn against Iraq? (I am of course referring to Colin Powell)

But still, to serve both sides of the discussion, I would point out that a fair number of people from relatively privileged backgrounds did serve in Vietnam. John Kerry for example. Criticize somebody for being a spoiled brat, coward or hypocrite -- don't criticize them just because they happen to be rich. Lots of rich people have served and lots of them are opposed to this war.

Re:You are expendable pawns.

[Catbeller]

And the rest of you, when are you joining up? The Army is in desperate need of you. Recruitment is down, nothing is helping. Three? Only three?

If all the young people who wanted this war would join up today, there'd be more than enough boots on the ground. You'd help the soldiers who are stuck there today, undermanned, live.

There is no excuse. You think the invasion and occupation is worth dying for? You think Bush and Rice and Cheney didn't lie their asses off?

JOIN. That's what war is about, sacrifice.

When are you sacrificing yourself?

If you don't think the occupation and asset seizure is worth your career, your education, your reproductive organ's attachment to your nether regions, or your very life -- then you have no right to support this war, demand its continuation, or demand that OTHERS SERVE IN YOUR PLACE.

Join, and help a private contractor making a thousand dollars per diem in the Green Zone see another day.

JOIN. Or oppose the war. You have no other options, Young Republicans.

Operation Yellow Elephant Help a Young Republican Join Today!

Re:You are expendable pawns.

[gordo3000]

rape is not something you do to simply survive, its something a pitiful excuse for a human being does. Guess what, lots of men in the military are like inmates in prison, keep them away from women they can get for long enough and they turn to rape. It in no way makes them a good person. It makes them little more than an animal. This isn't to say everyone in the military is that. But to defend indefensible actions (that do not keep them alive) is simply sad.

Re:You are expendable pawns.

[demachina]

" to put down the service of John Kerry and George H.W. Bush though."

Doh, I did miss the opportunity to point out there was an ulterior motive for George H.W. Bush enlisting when he did, and pulling strings to get a fighter in the Pacfic though he was way under age for it.

Right before he enlisted the Bush family, in particular his dad, George W.'s grandad, Prescott Bush was embroiled in a scandal. Prescott was a leading officer of Union Banking in New York, and most think he actually ran it day to day for the Harriman family. Soon after Pearl Harbor, Union Banking's assets were seized under the Trading with the Enemy Act. In particular Union Banking was the American investment arm forthe Thyssen family, one Germany's richest industrial dynasties. In fact Fritz Thyssen played a key role in bringing Hitler to power, by uniting the industrial magnates of Germany behind the National Socialists and in fact bankrolling them early in their rise to power (something Thyssen later came to regret). He wrote a rather dull book on his role in creating the 20th century's worst nightmare called "I Paid Hitler".

George H.W. Bush somewhat rushed in to the service not long after the scandal broke in the New York papers, and there is conjecture it may have been to salvage the future political fortunes of the family, and to deflect the impression that they were in bed with the enemy. The Bush's did pull strings due to his age, and may also may have pulled strings to get him to the Pacific theater and as far away from Nazi Germany as possible. The Bush family like a lot of wealthy American's (Henry Ford for example) gleefully invested in and did business with Nazi Germany in the 30's, and were more than a little sympathetic to Fascism especially in the face of the threat of Communism and the U.S.S.R. Doing business with the Thyssens in particullar did in many ways make the Bush family complicit in Hitler's rise to power.

Re:You are expendable pawns.

[huge colin]

So in other words it's okay to ridicule people who believe differently than you?

It's okay to ridicule people who stubbornly believe something that is wrong. In this case, yes, it's also different from what I believe, since I construct my beliefs based on evidence and not nonsense.

Are you suggesting that belief in the force of gravity and belief in invisible pink unicorns are both deserving of the same amount of respect?

the draft

[udderly]

When this fails to get enough recruits can the draft be far behind?

Re:the draft

[xnderxnder]

> When this fails to get enough recruits can the draft be far behind?

Am I the only one thinking that the "suppression file" is also aliased as "the first to be drafted file"

evil evil evil..

Re:the draft

[qbzzt]

When this fails to get enough recruits can the draft be far behind?

Given the kind of trouble they'd have with keeping draftees motivated, and the kind of skills they need, I doubt the military would want a draft.

It's easy to train somebody to be a WWII-level grunt. But most jobs in a modern military require a lot of intelligence, and it would be very easy for somebody to feign incompetence.

Re:the draft

[justforaday]

Given how much smarter and less tolerant Americans are nowadays compared to 40s, 60s, 70s...

From what I know about the past, it seems to me that ignorance and intolerance are doing just fine in modern day America...

Re:the draft

[Dun Malg]

When this fails to get enough recruits can the draft be far behind?

Nah. The Chiken-Little's shouting "the draft is coming" are (naturally) unfamiliar with how the military is currently structured. The entire training system is geared towards willing, self-motivated recruits who are there of their own volition. Anyone can, at any time in the first 6 months of their enlistment, say "this isn't working for me" and get out with a simple Entry Level Separation. An ELS doesn't show up as a "black mark" on your record anywhere.

But moving to a draft system, suddenly everyone is there at gunpoint. Most draftees will be recalcitrant, unmotivated dregs suitable for nothing more complicated than cannon fodder infantry. This may have been OK during the Bad Old Days, but even being an infantryman these days requires a fair bit of technical competency. Furthermore, the real shortage in the military is in recruiting people for complex technical jobs rather than straight-up combat arms. So essentially they'd end up with a whole raft of uncooperative bedding-delousing specialists just to get a handfull of tactical intelligence analysts. The military doesn't want the draft. They want more volunteers.

Re:the draft

[optiknerv]

Pumping everyone full of fear and waving flags around should be enough to scare enough stupid people into signing up. But they'll get some job experience, so they can come up and work as Walmart rent-a-cops.

In addition, standoff weapons, drones, robot warfare, and other systems will greatly reduce the size of force required to terrorize the planet.

Re:the draft

[MalaclypseTheYounger]

You know, the draft wouldn't be so bad.

Try calling it "Mandatory Civil Service" instead.

Everyone (EVERYONE) who turns 18 goes into this "Mandatory Civil Service". You get trained to be a soldier, or a medic, or computers, engineer, something useful for the government/military. You stay in for a year or two. Then, from 19-20 years old until you're, oh I don't know, 25 or 30, you are obligated for an amount of time to go into service, much like the reserves. Say 4 weekends per year, 2 weeks per year. Adjust these number accordingly (age range, days served).

It would make our society a little 'tighter' and make people appreciate their freedoms a bit more.

(Try looking at Israel's culture/society, they use the aforementioned plan).

Re:the draft

[pHatidic]

No. They are partnering with a marketing company, meaning that when you verify your data the marketinrg company will sell it to companies and spammers and the like. That way the government can get the marketing company to create the database for free, and the marketing company gets all its data on customers accurate under penalty of law, which it would not otherwise get. It is really a win-win for both. The only one who loses here is me, being a 20 year old male and such.

Re:the draft

[demachina]

"The military doesn't want the draft. They want more volunteers."

YEA. WHAT HE SAID. And if there aren't enough volunteers, we need to figure out how to "motivate" people to volunteer event if they dont want to :) Is a person a volunteer if they are coerced or tricked in to volunteering.

There is already a well documented trend of the DOD using fine print, trickery and out right coercion to prevent people already in the military and reserves from escaping when their contracted enlistment period is up. For all practical purposes many people already in the military and reserves ARE being drafted because they can't get out when they were supposed to.

Fact is the Army and Marines, their reserves and gaurds ARE missing their recruitment goals by a big margin and are now missing them every month and the popularity of the war in Iraq is plummeting. Eventually the DOD is going to run out of meat for the grinder. The Army and Marines the two services where the bulk of the sitting ducks being sent to Iraq come from. The Navy and Air Force are doing OK mostly because people who want to join the military know thats the best place to be to avoid ending up on the streets in Iraq.

Believe it or not most kids are smart enough to not want to end up in in an ugly urban guerilla war with no end in sight. A war where they would seldom see who is trying to kill them, where most of the natives hate them, and where lots of their peers are coming home in body bags, with burns or without limbs.

The all volunteer army is GREAT as long as you are never in a protracted shooting war, especially one based on lies and with no clear goal or end game. It simply wont work if Iraq turns in to another Vietnam. You simply wont get the volunteers needed to fight a dirty, messy war with no glory. You can get volunteers to race in on the tanks and declare victory in a week. You wont get volunteers to patrol Iraqi streets filled with an enemy you seldom see who are sniping at you and using IED's to blow your legs off.

Dont think it really matters if the military is structured for "volunteers" now. If people stop "volunteering" the DOD is screwed. Its either a full up draft with the political consequence to the people responsible(i.e. the Bush adminstration and the Republicans), back door drafts where you coerce and trick people in to the military and dont let them out which is basicly what we have now(the histroical term is Shanghai'ing people), or you cut and run on places like Iraq, and it probably collapses in to more of a smoldering hole in the ground than it already is and you just wasted half a trillion dollars and tens of thousands of dead and wounded on a failure.

Lucky for little George that he is a lame duck, because at this point it doesn't much matter how bad a job he does, we are stuck with him until 2008 unless someone acquires the balls to impeach him, which he most certainly deserves.

Re:the draft

[TED Vinson]

Those IT specialists/mechanics/etc you are talking about are _already_ being converted to Department of the Army civil service jobs. There is no tricky 'civilian draft' pending. Civilians are filling non-combat, non-deployable jobs to free up more soldiers to serve where needed. Looking for a job? Visit Army Civilian Personnel Online http://cpol.army.mil/employment

Much of the military is still structured for fighting a war with the Soviet Union. In many cases this is because of Congressional porkbarrel-preservation and the inertia inherent in any large organization. However, changes are in motion to make better use of the available personnel.

Re:the draft

[demachina]

The French did basicly just that in Algeria and Vietnam, Part 1. It was called the French Foreign Legion. They still lost both wars.

The U.S. is for all intents and purposes already doing it too, though they are using mercenaries under the misnomer of contractor. Blackwater is one company in particular which is supplying thousands of highly paid mercenaries, most of whom are ex special forces, trained by Uncle Sam at great expense, and at the first opportunity quit the Army to command 6 figure salaries as mercenaries ... errr ... contractors. I wager Blackwater takes plenty of foreign mercenaries too though I dont know for sure, and I'm sure they cost U.S. tax payers a small fortune to pay.

Halliburton/KBR is for all intents the same thing though not in a combat sense. They are basicly offered large sums of money to do all the jobs that used to be done by enlisted soldiers, cooking, cleaning and driving trucks in particular. Its a win because they dont cost the government the lifetime benefits package a soldier does, but the contracts are ripe for fraud and you cant count on contractors in a combat zone.

The French experience in Algeria is a really good case study for how Iraq might go. It was a dirty guerilla war in an arid Muslim country. The population absolutely and uniformly hated the French. Everything the French did to try to suppress the insurgency made the Algerians hate them more, and made the insurgency stronger. The Algerians tried org charts for the insurgency leadership like the U.S. does, and kidded themselves that as the crossed off the leaders they were crushing the insurgency. The fact is when everyone hates you, everytime you kill an insurgent 3 more spring up to take his or her place. You simply can't defeat an insurgency that is supported by a significant percentage of the population.

New World Order

[TripMaster Monkey]

Just when I think our society can't get any more Orwellian, we see this:

1. The Defense Department will compile and maintain a database of students, which will include such personal information as birth dates, Social Security numbers, e-mail addresses, grade-point averages, ethnicity and school subjects.
   
2. Anyone who wants to opt out of this database will be kept in another database instead (most probably named something like 'potential dissidents').
   
3. The Defense Department will share all this personal info with non-military organizations, such as law enforcement and state tax authorities.
   

It's a hat-trick of privacy violation.
This is just the tip of the iceberg, too...soon this will be expanded to all americans eligible for military service...then all americans, period. Refusing to submit your info for this database will automatically label you as a dissident, although what with the new national IDs coming out, you'll be in that database whether you like it or not.

Welcome to the New World Order.

(P.S.: Here's a link to the various privacy advocates' letter to the Pentagon referenced in the article.)

Re:New World Order

[8086ed]

This is redicuolus.

To opt out, you give them all of the information they need. The 16-17 year olds don't even have much of a say on this. I just turned 18, so at least I can annoy my Rep and Senator about it.

This war on terror isn't going to end, even if the war on personal freedom succeeds.

Re:New World Order

[empaler]

2. # Anyone who wants to opt out of this database will be kept in another database instead (most probably named something like 'potential dissidents').

This was my exact thought - "Oh, so you don't wantto be monitored... Don't worry, we won't use that against you. I'll just scribble all the same details in my little black book here, along with a picture of you..."

Re:New World Order

[TripMaster Monkey]

This has been going on for decades. Its called the Selective Service.

From the EPIC letter:

Despite the risk of identity theft, DOD proposes to collect SSNs on all high school students aged 16 - 18, all college students, all Selective Service System registrants, all Active Duty and Reserve members of the Armed Forces as well as several other large categories. While the size of any database is not an inherent flaw, any breach of security or change in policy will impact an enormous number of Americans. The size of the database also makes it an attractive target for identity thieves.

This is not Selective Service...this database is far more comprehensive than that.
Again, here's a link to the privacy advocates' letter to the D0D. You ought to peruse it...it's a very informative read.

Not Fair

[millahtime]

16 through college. I am a recent graduate but I want to be tracked for recruitment. This is discrimination. It's unconstitutional!

Well, Duh.

[American AC in Paris]

Of course the Pentagon is going to do this kind of thing. They are in desperate need of recruits. They're caught between a rock and a hard place: they're trying to fight a war that is unpopular with the majority of Americans, and a good chunk of those that do support it think that somebody other than themselves and their loved ones should be doing the actual fighting and dying part.

What do you do? Recruit, recruit, recruit like there's no tomorrow. Use every tool you can get your hands on. Raise the "financial incentives" of joining up--even if you were to double a grunt's pay, they'd still be waaaay cheaper than hiring another mercenary. Make lists. Get aggressive. Be persistent. Get every person you can lay your hands on.

One of the following things will most likely happen in the next few years:

1. We'll pour huge amounts of money into hiring more mercenary forces to augment our armed forces;
2. We'll reinstate the draft in one form or another;
3. We'll claim victory, pull our troops out, and hope that the Iraqis can sort it out themselves;
4. We'll claim victory, ensconce a substantial number of troops in hardened, remotely-located permanent bases, and hope that the Iraqis can sort it out themselves;
5. We'll get a massive surge in recruitment and will be able to meet our military needs with a full-strength volunteer service.
6. The insurgency will die and a stable Iraqi government will take hold.

The Pentagon would much rather have a healthy, full-strength, all-volunteer military force than an expensive, byzantine network of "independent contractors" doing more and more grunt work outside the scope of both military and civil law. To this end, they're gonna do everything in their power to meet their recruitment needs--and frankly, creating a database of students is pretty freakin' innocuous compared to some of the other recruiting shenanigans that have been going down lately...

Re: Well, Duh.

[Black Parrot]

> Of course the Pentagon is going to do this kind of thing. They are in desperate need of recruits.

I hear that the "Cannonfodder Wanted" ads didn't produce the desired results, nor the "It's sweet and proper to die for one's Cheny" ads either.

Re:Well, Duh.

[dedeman]

I'll pick #1 and #4, here's why

#1 Offers an opportunity for the administration to funnel federal monies to private contracting "security" firms, allowing financial incentives for a great many civilians who are not bound by the same rules of military conduct that the soldiers are. It also allows for legal weapons testing. Is is any wonder why the current vice president was the former CEO of the largest conracting agency involved in the war effort?

#5 Even if we claim victory, or achieve victory, or some similar claim, it is (usually) habit to keep an occupying force in a conquered land. There are several bases in the south, Germany, Japan, and I believe we'll see more middle eastern strongholds, thus necessitating larger troop populations, contracting funtions, and *continuing larger military budgeting*. Yep.

The Pentagon would much rather have a healthy, full-strength, all-volunteer military force than an expensive, byzantine network of "independent contractors" doing more and more grunt work outside the scope of both military and civil law.

I don't know if I would necessarily agree with that, for reasons stated above, unless you mean specifically "the Pentagon", rather then the administration. You might be right about that, I'm not sure.

Re:Well, Duh.

[American AC in Paris]

I meant the Pentagon specifically--whether the force is hired, conscripted or voluntary is secondary to the aims of the administration. You can rest assured that the military leaders at the Pentagon would take a bona-fide U.S. soldier over a mercenary any day of the week.

I agree with you--I think #1 and #4 are our most likely outcomes. Hell, we've been working on the hardened, remote, permanent bases since the get-go.

This war is about many things--freedom, spreading democracy, oil, security, terrorism, removing despotic regimes, finishing old business, even petty revenge. They're all secondary and postfact, though, to the real motivator behind this war--power. At root, the war in Iraq is and has always been about America establishing and exercising power in a strategically and economically valuable region of the world. Go read The Project for the New American Century's September 2000 report on Rebuilding America's Defenses. Pay close attention to section III: Repositioning Today's Force. Notice anything eerily prescient?

It's a shame our leaders didn't feel confident enough in the merits of their plans to level with us in the first place. I bet they could have had far more success in their venture without all the smoke, mirrors and bullshit they used in lieu of being frank about what they were going about doing.

Re:Well, Duh.

[chphilli]

If the war is "unpopular with the majority of Americans", it won't go on.

Simply because you, or even most of Slashdot, don't like the war, doesn't mean that's the way most of the country feels.

Personally,
1) while I feel that some of the details of the original plan have become confused, the overall effort is good, and
2) I have friends in Iraq that are glad to be there, because they have a sense of national pride, and a commitment to something other more than themselves.

Don't apply your opinion to the rest of America.

Re:Well, Duh.

[American AC in Paris]

Simply because you, or even most of Slashdot, don't like the war, doesn't mean that's the way most of the country feels....Don't apply your opinion to the rest of America.

I'm not applying my opinion to the rest of America. I'm deferring to The Gallup Organization.

I'll readily grant that polls aren't perfect--I used to work for a pollster, and I'm well aware of the pitfalls involved in this kind of thing--but I invite you to direct me towards a better metric of American popular opinion. I also invite you to refute the notion that the war in Iraq is losing, not gaining, support.

1) while I feel that some of the details of the original plan have become confused, the overall effort is good

"Some of the details"? We went to Iraq because we were told that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and that an attack on the United States was imminent. Which part of that reason turned out to be right?

The overall effort, while rooted in good intentions, has been abysmal. Can you point to a single pre-invasion document or plan for what we would do once we had deposed Hussein and defeated the Iraqi armed forces? What about the disbanding of the Iraqi army--was that a good move? What of the aggressive de-Baathification of Iraq--was that a good move? What of the fact that Iraqis still do not have reliable electricity--is that a good sign? What of the fact that our policy on detainees and interrogation became so muddled and laissez-faire that we ended up with hundreds of documented cases of prisoner abuse and torture at US detention facilities around the world--is that a good thing?

The overall effort is without direction. The overall effort is based on a nebulous concept of how the current administration would like to see American power exercised around the globe. The current plan is, as it has always been, rooted in the basic hope that things will magically right themselves with just a little more perseverance and muscle. While the overall effort is decidedly good--our troops are performing incredibly well under extremely difficult conditions--the actual planning and execution is utterly abysmal. That is what has my hackles up--our leaders sent our finest into a situation that they didn't have any real plan for, beyond "make it all better". That is what disgusts me.

2) I have friends in Iraq that are glad to be there, because they have a sense of national pride, and a commitment to something other more than themselves.

As well they should be proud--they're fighting a noble cause! Ask your friends, though, if they feel like the powers that be know what they're doing. Ask your friends if they know what the road to victory is. Ask your friends how one distinguises friend from foe. You may find that, while they are justifiably proud of what they're doing, they feel some very real trepidation as to where the war is going, and what needs to be done to actually win the war.

The road to hell is indeed paved with good intentions. The simple and infuriating fact is that we're in Iraq with a wonderful, noble goal in mind--but without a plan as to how to get there, because our leaders assumed that the wonderful, noble goal would simply achieve itself once we removed Saddam. It could have worked, if only our leaders had planned for the day after. Now, we'll be genuinely lucky if Iraq doesn't sink into a protracted civil war and the rest of the region doesn't sink further into instability.

How does this not infuriate you?

In Soviet America... (sorry, couldn't resist)

[Spy der Mann]

School studies YOU!

Re:In Soviet America... (sorry, couldn't resist)

[WillAffleckUW]

No, in Soviet America, Our Glorious Leader's Five Year Plan is to Win The War in Five Years.

Ignore the fact that it's the same plan that Our Glorious Leader had Five Years ago ...

I want to Opt-Out!

[Zemplar]

Name: Osama Bin Laden
Address: 5586 Ti..."Hey, wait a minute...!"

ALL YOUR KIDS

[Black Parrot]

are belong to us.

In other words

[Andy Dodd]

The Pentagon is making a database of the poorest and most underprivileged high school students in order to hook them in to military service.

At my high school, which was in a relatively wealthy county, there were almost never military recruiters, and very few students went into the military. Those that did would do so via the rather prestigious military colleges (U.S. Naval Academy, etc.).

Meanwhile, I have relatives that live in upstate New York. Their school district is in a relatively poor section of the country, and they have recruiters almost permanently stationed in the high schools, preying on the students. At this point, even if parents complain, the school can do nothing about the recruiters' presence due to the No Child Left Behind act.

Re:In other words

[ReadParse]

Yeah, but let's not forget that the US Military is a tremendous career opportunity for many people, as an alternative to trade school, minimum wage jobs, unemployment, etc. They take great care of you, the pay is good, and the benefits are extraordinary and last long after you leave the service. I got out almost 10 years ago (having served 5 years) and bought my first house on a VA government-guaranteed mortgage, and will probably buy my second house on another VA mortgage.

Is there a downside to all of these benefits? Well certainly. The purpose of the military, of course, is to fight wars. But if these kids study in school and can do well enough on the ASVAB test, they can get into the Air Force or the Navy, where their lives will be in much less immediate peril and where they can learn extremely useful technical skills.

As Americans, we're spoiled -- and it's easy to forget what actual poverty is like. In many countries, the poorest kids are the ones who cannot go to school because they can't afford it or because they must work to support their families. In America, most of the poor kids are excused from doing well in school because they're from disfunctional families, and that is called poverty. Do they have a TV? Of course. Telephone? Yes. Cable? Very often. Satellite? Big-screen? Designer clothes? You'd be surprised.

Ah, but do they have a part-time job and carry books home in hopes of maybe moving on to something better one day? Some do. But many don't. Military recruiters recognize the more limited future of these kids and that they have something to offer them. Military recruitment is usually a win/win proposition. Let's not forget how much service personnel GET from the US government. I'm one of them and I can attest to it.

RP

Re:In other words

[LnxAddct]

Well, although it might seem inhumane, the kids more likely to succeed in life *should* be left alone because they will form the economic and technological backbone of the country in decades to come. Those who are already "poor" and will most likely "fail" while being a drain on society will be better off fighting. If nothing else, they'll learn a thing or two. It is kind of like, "You can spend the rest of your life living in mediocrity and most likely wasting tax dollars through programs like welfare, or join us, learn to shape up, fight well, hopefully survive and leave in a few years with knowledge that you've never had before, which will help you get a better job and thus live a better life. We'll even help pay for college if you want." A lot of kids would be better off joining the forces (not everyone is infantry btw, there is alot more to do then just shoot at the enemy). Alot of other people are better off staying away from joining the forces and are better off either strengthening the country economically or even just regular programmers who are most likely going to be of more use coding some application to assist in fighting rather then actually fighting.
Regards,
Steve

Re:In other words

[pizen]

They take great care of you, the pay is good, and the benefits are extraordinary and last long after you leave the service.

"Are you interested in joining? The benefits are terrific. The trick is not to get killed. That's really the key to the benefit program." - Vince Ricardo (The In-Laws)

Second time today I've quoted this movie on slashdot. He's actually referring to joining the CIA but the sentiment is the same.

Re:In other words

[Dachannien]

"Preying"? You make it sound like the recruiters are kidnapping these kids and pressing them into service.

There's a reason why recruiters focus on poorer areas in their recruiting drives. The military offers a steady job for four years with additional compensation for people who go to college afterwards. It also offers the possibility of making one's career in the military. When you compare that to the alternative - working in low-wage blue collar jobs, when you're working at all - people in poor areas find the military to be an attractive option. In more affluent areas, recruitment isn't as worthwhile, because most kids have the resources already available to them to take a different (safer, easier, higher-paying) career path by going to college immediately.

This isn't some insidious plot to enlist underprivileged kids. It's an appropriate allocation of recruitment resources to the areas of the country where recruitment will be the most successful. In other words, this is the military being efficient.

Any other time, people would be complaining about how the military wastes so much money - but in this case, where the military is managing its resources well, they're accused of being nefarious. I guess they just can't win.

Re:In other words

[Charcharodon]

Well my original post was much more rude, but I deleted it to give it another go.

First off, I'm not a recruiter though I am in the Air Force and have been so for 10 years. Recruiters don't "prey" on poor kids, but yes they do find many potential recruites in that population. When compared to their options getting sent to Iraq to fight has a much higher life expectancy than staying home and getting involved to crime and drugs.

Actually recruiters rather go after the middle class kids since most of your lower class have to many educational problems and past criminal behaivor. Most are turned away as unexceptable as they can't pass minimum standards. Turns out the Army doesn't want to deal with them either and could easily fill their quotas plus some if they where willing to snatch up every poor 17-20 year old that applied.

The military has always been a stepping stone to move out of dead end social/economic situation. In my case it was either go on unemployment/welfare or go back and live with the parents, neither were viable options in my mind, so instead I joined the Air Force. Out of the deal I've gotten two college degrees and enough certifications/licenses in aviation (pilot and mechanic) as well as SCUBA to choke a very hungry donkey. By the time I'm done, 10 more years to go, I'll have a retirement check, a Masters degree, and my transport pilot rating. Not to bad of a deal at all.

Opportunities are what you make of them. The military is a very good opportunity for the poor if they can even get it in the first place. The rich will always avoid the military unless it has something they want. It wouldn't be too hard though to get them to join. Just bring back the death tax and make it 75% for those that don't serve (on the kids not the parents) and make public service (military, police, fire, etc ala Heinland) a requirement to hold public office. The rich kids would be flooding the recruiters then.

Re:In other words

[wass]

You bring up important points, and there certainly are opportunistic benefits for joing the army. But there are some real problems with the current situation. Soldiers must be able to trust their leaders to only deploy them if absolutely necessary, and unfortunately the current administration has betrayed their trust. We're fighting a war that more and more people, including Republican politicians, are realizing we shouldn't have initiated.

You say "Military recruiters recognize the more limited future of these kids and that they have something to offer them. Military recruitment is usually a win/win proposition." If we had responsible leaders who used war as a last resort, you might be right. But in the current debacle, it's atrocious the some people justify getting poor Americans to fight a war led by hawkish politicians who won't put themselves or their families in harm's way.

About 1700 young Americans have been killed in action thus far, it shouldn't be only the poorer families be the ones to risk their children's lives in order to have a better future. Do you support these 1700 deaths, along with tens of thousands of cases of physical and psychological injuries, such that other soldiers have a chance to lead a better life?

When you say the military takes care of you, that sentiment is greatly questioned by those in active duty. Where were you stationed during your service, and how many of your fellow soldiers were killed on the front line?

Also due to the current recruiting crisis, military recruiters have resorted to unethical practices to get people to enlist. Shouldn't these potential recruits make the decision to join on their own, without pressure from the recruiter?

The current class gap recruiting policies are nothing more than a technique to allow poor soldiers fight a war that the rich politicians support but don't want their own family members fighting in.

Re:In other words

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree with him, and I am one of the biggest bush hating socially liberal democrats you will ever meet. I think the Iraq war is an atrocity.

Now lets say I am a poor kid from a place like Flint, Michigan, or the rustbelt and just eeked my way to a high school diploma. I have a few options:

A.) Work in a physically stressful, probably menial and dirty job such as fastfood, custodian, or retail worker. Live paycheck to paycheck, narrowly escaping poverty, maybe one day get promoted to shift supervisor or find a steady factory worker, or civil service job and make $15/hr.

B.) Join the Army, gain valuable skills, earn salary on top of getting basics (food, shelter) paid for. Have the advantage of having the respect of being in the US armed forces on my resume, for the rest of my life.

Downside(today): There is a solid chance that I will get shipped off to war and get disabled for life or killed. Note that only 15% of actively enrolled people in the military are deployed overseas in military operations, and of those 15%, how many are actually on the front lines?

What is an attractive choice to you?

Re:Interview

[TripMaster Monkey]

Officer: How many girlfriends have you had?

Candidate: None. I'm gay. A real faggot.

Officer: Nice try...your file says you are a confirmed hetero. Go pick up your uniform, maggot.

your infosec on file

[null etc.]

A little chuckle from the Pentagon in the article: '...anyone can opt out of the system by providing detailed personal information that will be kept in a separate suppression file. That file will be matched with the full database regularly to ensure that those who do not wish to be contacted are not, according to the Pentagon.

For anyone who wonders why this would be necessary, let me give an example.

CapitalOne got it into their heads that they should send me a credit card application every week. After spending an hour trying to track down a telephone number that would let me speak with a CSR without having an account number, I asked them to stop mailing me. The CSR rep replied that the system takes 12 to 16 weeks to fully honor a request to not receive offers! Which is pretty funny, because I asked the rep "so if I sign up for the credit card today, you can take my name off the list, but if I just want you to stop sending me junk that someone can use to steal my identity, it takes 4 months?!?!" He didn't have a good answer.

Anyways, as soon as I move to a new address three months later, I started receiving two offers from CapitalOne every week! They obvious match solely on name and address.

I just don't feel like going through the same bollux again to get my address off the list. Sheesh.

Re:your infosec on file

[hsmith]

actually, if you want to OPT-OUT from ALL credit card offers:

you can call : 1-888-5-OPTOUT to get out of this, there is a website, they give it to you in the phone number, i did it 3 months ago, i barely get any now (tehy have to work you out of the system, some places have purchased your info from the credit bureaus like 3-4 months ago)

http://www.ftc.gov/privacy/protect.htm

Re:your infosec on file

[killmuji]

Just in case u are still trying to get them off your back, you can register here with the credit bureaus at https://www.optoutprescreen.com/?rf=t.

I did that and now I only get an offer once in a blue moon.

Re:your infosec on file

[Raztus]

Reminds me of this quote. This kid is brilliant!

-wolf- 1. Save every Free Credit Card Offer you get, Put it in pile A
-wolf- 2. Save every Free Coupon You get, put that in pile B
-wolf- 3. Now open the credit card mail from pile A and find the Business Reply Mail Envelope.
-wolf- 4. Take the coupons from pile B and stuff them in the envelope you hold in your hand.
-wolf- 5. Drop the stuffed to the brim envelopes in your mail and walk away whistling.
-wolf- I have now received two phone calls from the credit card companies telling me that they received a stuffed envelope with coupons rather then my application. They informed me that it they are not pleased that they footed the bill for the crap I sent them. I reply with "It says Business Reply Mail" I'm suggesting coupons to you to ensure that your business is more successful. They promptly hang up on me.
-wolf- Now, I did this for about a month before it got boring, so I got an added idea! I added exactly 33 cents worth of pennies to the envelope so they paid EXTRA due to the weight. I got a call informing me about the money, I said it was a mistake and I demanded my change back. After yelling at the clerk and then to the supervisor they agreed to my demands and cut me a check for the money. I hold in my hand at this very moment a check from GTE Visa for exactly 33 cents.

Re:your infosec on file

[VAXcat]

Even before 9/11 and the Patriot Act, this would get you a trip to the pokey, since using a "hoax bomb" is a felony in most states. Now, I'm sure the federales would be all over you as well. It's an amusing fantasy (best if it stays that way).

Opt out

[Anonymous Coward]

Opt-out isn't as easy as it seems. You can't just delete somebody from the database, because then you have no record of them opting-out the next time you do a data load from your source. The only way to properly do opt-out is to put them in a separate opt-out DB.

dom

Re:Opt out

[Holi]

or you add a field to the database for opt-outs.

Re:Opt out

[sjames]

While logically true, too many take advantage of the logic. Many of the fields can be deleted, for example, everything but SSN (a unique identifier) and a 'not interested' flag. Since they are provided SSN to enter data in the database, they will have enough to know that the record in question shouldn't go in, even with duplicates.

It sounds like you disagree with this.

[khasim]

That will be recorded in the database.

It sounds like you are not happy with this.

Failure to be happy is treason.

In Soviet Amerika, our new Overlords welcome you.

This costs money... I don't want to pay for it

[Anonymous Coward]

I have no interest in paying for this troop shortage. Maybe we can have an American lapel-pin flag tax on all the cheap patriotism out there so that they can get what they want.

Maybe the government could get more recruits if they didn't sound like such a fascist organization:

"You believe in America. Strength. Integrity. Dedication. Making a difference for the nation. ... You are the one our warfighters depend on. You are Intelligence. Be DIA."

This is from a job posting for the DIA. The kind of people that would be attracted to this are the kind of sheeple that would ignore the non-existance of WMDs in official reports.

Draft needed for upcoming Iran invasion.

[CyricZ]

A draft will be needed for the upcoming invasion of Iran, which Scott Ritter (former UN weapons inspector in Iraq) says has already covertly started.

Indeed, Iran is not like Iraq. Iraq was a very splintered social and religious community, while Iran is far more coherent. Iran is well armed. Considering how poorly the Americans have fared in Iraq, Iran is out of the question for anyone with half a mind. Unfortunately, such people are not at the helm of the United States.

I'm praying for all the American youth who may get mislead into dying in some desert battlefields in third-world nations.

Remember!

[dr_dank]

Service guarantees citizenship!

Do your part!

Would you like to know more?

My how things have changed

[shoppa]

When I was in high school:

• I didn't have a social security number
• I didn't have a driver's license
• I certainly didn't have any credit cards

But I did have a:

• Savings account. Paper passbook. I imagine that all the numbers were in some computer somewhere but it sure wasn't networked with anything else.
• Student info folder at school. All the grades etc. were kept track of by secretaries and typewriter.
• Selective Service registration (I turned 18 my senior year).

The place where I did finally interface with some national databases was when I took the PSAT's. All of a sudden a bazillion colleges were sending me mail. (No, not E-mail!)

Of course, now all my kids got Social Security numbers at birth. If you don't get them one, you can't use them as a deduction...!

Every Army Recruiter Already Has A Database

[jac1962]

It's called (or was called ca 1993 - 1997) a "P-card" (Prospect card)

A P-card is what that poor bastard uses when he calls you or your slacker kid every freakin' night of the week, trying to get the two "sits" (appointments) his staion commander told him he had to get before he could go home for the night.

P-card databases are built from a variety of automated and non-automated sources. The armed forces have bought mailing lists targeting the male 18-24 year group for years. Recruiters also use high school year books, phone books, mailing lists provided by schools, and the ASVAB test you took to get out of PE for the day, and other students to build their P-card database.

The Penatagon building another database is redundant as any recruiter will tell you. Most of the leads it will generate will likely be useless, but recuriters will be forced to refine them, adding more work to an already never-ending day on the bag.

I imagine many army recruiters are wishing they were in Iraq right now instead of cold-calling people with little to no interest in volunteering to serve in the military.

At least in Iraq they get to shoot back at the bastards.

This is not new .

[hirschma]

A couple of stories that may add a historical perspective:

Plastic Army Men
----------------

Remember the great deals on plastic Army men that you could get on the back covers of comic books? This was back in the early '70's. My friend and his brother weren't satisified with their "one per customer" offer, so they made up a bunch of fake siblings with silly names and sent orders it their name.

About 10 years later, the brothers were getting a ton of military recruiting junk mail. As were their fake siblings...

Riflery Team
------------

I was a member of the Riflery team in high school, circa 1981. I lived in a pretty liberal place at the time.

At on practice, I looked down at the bucket of spent .22 casings, and wondered: who was paying for the bullets? I couldn't imagine that the left-wing PTA would ever budget for them.

I asked the teacher-coach. He looked at me funny, and said: "The Army pays for the bullets".

It took me a second to absorb this, and I asked what the Army was getting back in return. The teacher-coach said: "Your target scores".

Now, my parents hadn't agreed to that, and neither did I. I quit that day, not wanting to be "special need" drafted as a sniper.

jh

Re:This is not new .

[Dun Malg]

Then why was the Army interested enough in kids' target scores to pay for the rifle team's bullets in exchange for them?

They weren't interested. I guarantee it. Collection of scores is probably just typical government aggregation of pointless data. It sounds to me like there's some failure to understand how the DCM/CMP(Director of Civilian Marksmanship/Civilian Marksmanship Program) works. It was created in 1908 by an act of congress to encourage rifle proficiency among an increasingly urban national population that was showing a dimishing familiarity with firearms. It's administered by the US Army, but has its own budget. It's no fiendish plot by dark forces trade bullets for recruitment leads, it's a nearly century old and largely irrelevant government program. DCM hands out free bullets, and generates useless reports saying "scores show that marksmanship has improved; good job we're doing; continue to fund us".

Anti-recruiting lists?

[smagruder]

Makes me wonder if the schools with cooperate with "anti-recruiters" who are trying to starve the armed forces so the U.S. won't also go into Iran or Syria based on yet another pack of Bush lies. Normally I would be opposed to such activity, but as long as we're invading countries illegally (i.e., as long as Bush is in office), this would seem to be a prudent effort.

There is not going to be a draft

[WebHostingGuy]

Why does everyone keep bringing this up? It's a neat scare tactic but it's not going to happen. There is still an excess of reservists and guard units which have not been called up. (I know this because I know a lot of them which have not been called up or have been rotated home from duty). Barring another war taking place on US soil there will not be a draft.

Committing to a draft would actually hurt the military more than help. A dramatic increase in personnel would strain existing logistical resources and money allotted to the department of defense. There would have to be a extreme increase in military funding before any drafting would occur.

Re:There is not going to be a draft

[KlomDark]

Absolutely! I would join up in a heartbeat if it were a war on our own soil, or something honorably directly threatening. I would give my life for my country if I knew my death would have a direct effect.

However, I have no interest in risking even my little toe for these current punk-ass "world police" bullshit sand/oil wars.

The most feared sentence in the English Language

[davmoo]

"Hi, I'm from the government and I'm here to help you."

This line causes more people to run in fear than any weapon of mass destruction.

Impressive...

[Maljin Jolt]

In my country, so called people's army had exactly such a database of all students, because every student was actualy a recruit on delay.

But that was deep past in the totalitarian communist era. Today it would be illegal to keep such data for any reason. What's exactly going on in the USA??? Is it a precursor to conscription?

One step beyond..

[PopeAlien]

Thats funny - they already get names addresses and telephone numbers from schools in exchange for federal aid as noted in this article

A little-noticed clause in the 2002 No Child Left Behind Act requires high schools to hand over students' names, addresses and telephone numbers to military recruiters as a condition of receiving federal aid.

I guess this would fill in the gaps and really make sure 'no child is left behind'.

I wonder would this lead to more or less stories like this:

In one well-publicized case in Colorado, Army recruiters were tape-recorded encouraging a student journalist posing as a high school dropout to create a diploma from a non-existent school to comply with military enlistment requirements. They also were heard giving him advice on how to disguise a chronic "marijuana problem" and how to pass a mandatory drug test.

Re:One step beyond..

[snorklewacker]

> They also were heard giving him advice on how to disguise a chronic "marijuana problem" and how to pass a mandatory drug test.

The fake diploma thing is downright dishonest, but I've had employers tell me before a drug test "just drink a whole lot of gatorade a few days before and take a b12 tablet the day of the test". It's not like the kid was a crackhead, and these folks figured, probably rightly, that the army might clean him up.

Before shipping him off to get him killed for the commander-in-chief's personal vendetta of course.

By the way, it'd lead to less stories. They'll be able to screen out those pesky journalists. Word to the wise student: take journalism.

Re:One step beyond..

[Anonymous Coward]

Some things I've noted during my time in service.

Army recruiters (the ones out there actually doing the recruiting) are often under pressure from their first sergeant to produce names, and have a certain quota for each month. This is a bad way to do it, in my opinion.

When I finished AIT (Advanced Individual Training, which is training for your specific job) I was able to get Hometown Recruiting. I didn't want to enlist anyone, or anything along those lines. I wanted the extra two weeks at home with my family.

When I reported for duty, I signed a counseling statement saying that I would come up with at least three "leads" within the first 72 hours, and that I must get at least two people to enlist while I was there, or else I would be put on leave for the amount that I had requested and then be sent to my first real duty station.

I play the good soldier, because damn it, I want to spend two weeks with my family. I was constantly pressured every day for leads, and was told to go through the LRL (Local Recruiter Listing, I believe -- Books that have the phone numbers, etc., of HS students that have graduated or are going to graduate) and call up any names that I recognize.

Myself and the others that are there on HRAP are sent out daily with anywhere from 200-600 fliers, and told to distribute them throughout neighborhoods and apartment complexes, (some of which are gated, which we were told to ignore) and place them on doors, etc.

(Fun note: Most of the time we went and got wasted at this one guy's house, and just trashed the fliers.)

Anyways. Recruiters are nefarious not only outside the Army, but within it as well for being... unethical, at best. (I will make a note, that not ALL recruiters are evil tools of the government. Some of them are downright awesome, and do the right thing.) The fact of the matter is, though, that they've got pressure from their chain of command to produce names. I guess that makes some of them not care how they get those names.

Re:One step beyond..

[sgtrock]

As bad as this sounds, it used to be much, MUCH worse back in the late '70s. Back then, the All Volunteer Force was just getting off the ground. Also, many civilians really believed that anyone who wished to serve his or her country in uniform was either a latent baby killer, or a complete incompetent who couldn't make it in the 'real world'.

I was lucky enough to have an honest recruiter for the Navy warn me up front about what I'd be facing if I put the uniform on. However, once I reached boot camp I heard plenty of horror stories; lots of recruiters who lied about conditions, guys whose recruiters took the ASVAB (Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery) for them, faked drug tests by recruiters, recruiters who lied on the paperwork about recruits' educational background, etc.

Why was this going on? Well, mostly because the Navy would severely punish sailors who did not meet their recruiting quota. When you have some guy with 15 years in uniform who was struggling just to support his family (on food stamps no less!), staring at the possibility of the loss of his pension because he's about to lose a stripe (which puts him below the minimum rank to be allowed to re-enlist to reach 20 years), he'll do what he has to to avoid it. When you have guys who are facing the possibility of time in the brig if they don't meet quota, they'll do what they have to to avoid it. And forget ever making chief petty officer if you get a letter of reprimand because you missed one monthly quota!

Because the risks to a career were so high, recruiting duty at the time was considered as unpaid hazardous duty by many. Sailors used to volunteer for back to back sea duty tours just to avoid it.

Re:One step beyond..

[AnotherEscobar]

Actually, in looking at how I would go about homeschooling one of my kids, I found that I could create my own high school diploma for her when I had determined that she had graduated.
Now, I only began looking in to home schooling, and I am sure that someone more familiar with the subject could probably correct me, but I dont believe there is such a thing as a 'fake' high school diploma.

Re:One step beyond..

[webview]

I was lucky enough to have an honest recruiter for the Navy warn me up front about what I'd be facing if I put the uniform on.

I always thought the Navy was upfront about the life threatening work you would be doing.

You know. Navy. Accelerate Your Life.

Re:One step beyond..

[Aqua OS X]

True, nevertheless, it's concerning to see that we've been slowly rolling backward over the past few years.

Nothing new here...

[dustymugs]

The Dept of Education is planning on creating a national database too. This database is for college students across the country with "unit-level" records for each student. What does this mean? The government will collect every class a student enrolls in and measure that student's performance. So far, this is gonna be for the undergraduate level, but can be expanded for all levels of college.

More details are available here... http://chronicle.com/free/v51/i14/14a02201.htm

Is this something worth being shocked about? Not really, student data is shared all the time in the academic system. This includes everything about that student and their families.

Personally, I say "eh!". The government (and everyone else with your info) has been doing it for 50+ years, so having one more is no biggie. I think these things are hyped a little too much.

Perhaps if they didn't treat recruits like

[antifoidulus]

children maybe they would have more luck. I almost enlisted in the army, but I wanted to talk it over with my family beforehand. I called and canceled my appointment only to have a recruiter call me up and try to play mind games in order to pressure me into joining. I played a game called "Propaganda" in Academic Games in high school, and I was identifying every single technique he was using. He was playing mind games with me like I was 12. If the Army wants to play games, let them play games. Meanwhile recruits will dwindle as they get treated like shit for the chance to die for Dick Cheney.

Re:Bring back the draft

[fishbowl]

"I think we will see a draft return sometime in the next few years if the military continues to fail to meet recruiting goals."

There are a few people in the camp of "things need to get a whole hell of a lot worse before people really start getting mad and taking action", who think a draft would be a step in the right direction.

There are also people who believe that a conscript army has a chance of becoming a revolutionary force that ends up cleaning up the mess.

Perspective of a US Marine

[Crizzam]

Listen folks, here's the deal. Many people are opposed to the war, both inside and outside of the military. This is inconcequential to this discussion. People are using this issue to present thier own personal interests. Parents are calling foul play because they don't want Johnny or Suzie getting blown up in Iraq. Other people are fearful of their privacy, so this sounds all too "big brother" to them. The reality of the entire issue is this: We are a nation founded on revolution and war. Our power in the world was won through superior military force. We are currently having difficulty in maintaining that force. Measures are being taken to resolve that issue. Period. Don't cry to me about big brother or dead children. Look at the world around you and realize that the reason you enjoy your freedoms is because of the blood spilt by hundreds of thousands of Americans who paid the price for you. (I'll stop short of the Christ reference) If people really don't want thier children getting blown up, then don't vote for a president who will go to war so easily. If you are afraid of "big brother", don't use credit cards, save your money and pay for everything in cash. Our modern society is productive because of our ability to exploit knowledge opportunities. Now that it's being done for the defense of the country, people want to complain. If a marketing company sent you a free box of Tide Detergent in the mail you wouldn't bitch, because you're greedy like that. Well, you're being given freedom, and it's going to require some computers and research to get it done. No one forces the hand of the individual to sign the paper. So shut up about all the crap, take a deep breath and try not to choke on the sweet air of freedom. Went to school? Thank a teacher. Learned in English? Thank a soldier.

Re:Perspective of a US Marine

[Lord Omlette]

Our power in the world was won through superior military force. We are currently having difficulty in maintaining that force.

I've got a genius idea to solve our problem: stop invading and occupying countries that posed zero threat to us whatsoever.

Re:Perspective of a US Marine

[rhizome]

>Look at the world around you and realize that the reason you enjoy your
>freedoms is because of the blood spilt by hundreds of thousands of
>Americans who paid the price for you.

I've never believed this sentiment to be anything other than a
self-serving lie spoken by bullies. Given that there is no economic
model that I'm aware of that posits freedom in terms of price, it's
equally probable that we enjoy our freedoms *in spite of* the wars the
government has engaged in.

Forget US schools. Mexico is a better option.

[christoofar]

I'm all in favor of the DREAM act. Since 1890, Texas has been dealing with a flood of illegal immigration, which didn't abate after the amnesty program in the 1980s.

Seriously, these are kids who aren't interested in the Service, and they're only signing up because they're being sweet talked into it like a crack whore lookin' for a fix. Soon after they're shipped off for BT do they realize what a mistake they've made.

So, where else is there a pool of semi-muscular blobs that can be turned into killing machines? There are two... a) the prison system and b) illegal immigrants.

Illegal immigrants want to become citizens. They keep saying when they come over that they'll just work for a few years and go back home. That never happens.

Why not convince these people to actually do something meaningful for a change and stop debasing wages? That's right! These pobrecitos who are picking our oranges and driving our trucks can make MUCH better money in the E3-E6 paygrade... WORLDS better than back in the coloñias or the barrio.

Let these immigrants prove their worth! In exchange for their service they get citizenship and GI eligibility.

Mexico benefits as well as the US here. The military fulfills its quotas and can stop harassing the preppy white kids in schools. Mexico's population declines to a level its government can support. Everybody wins (oh except the kids that won't join up... you get to fight for white collar jobs that haven't left for India).

Must be fun to be an American Now

[Rac3r5]

Jokes aside..

This is getting sadder and sadder. It seems that the American ppl keep on loosing their freedom and right to privacy every time.

It seems that the US be becoming a big brother policed state funded by Greedy Corporations.

Opt-out == Opt-in

[Winterblink]

How much do you want to bet that those that opt-out of the recruitment database are automatically opted-in to a database of people to profile as to WHY they opted-out. :)

Other countries

[spaceyhackerlady]

In Canada (and many other countries) it would go something like this:

Officer: How many girlfriends have you had?

Candidate: None. I'm gay. A real faggot.

Officer: So what. Go pick up your uniform, maggot.

It's a shame the way things have worked out. Done right, you get the right people volunteering, and you have a dedicated corps of people who put their asses on the line for their country. Not because they were ordered to, but because they want to. This is not something to sneer at. Ever.

I considered a military career myself, but for a variety of reasons didn't do it. Something must have rubbed off, though, because people routinely assume I have military background somewhere...

...laura

No Child Left Behind

[wass]

Yeah, few people realize that the No Child Left Behind Act isn't only about raising standardized test scores but also helps recruiters get unimpeded information about potential recruits. See this article from 2002, long before there was the current recruiting crisis due to the Iraq war.

Also - there are ways for high school parents and students to "opt out" of the recruiting campaign. If you're a high school student or parent of such a student, you might find these links helpful:

• Resource Center for Non-Violence
• Leave My Child Alone
• ACLU sues Albuquerque school for violating privacy provisions

Alternatives?

[medcalf]

OK, so let's drop the empty sloganeering, FUD about the draft and such for a few moments. The military exists. It only takes volunteers. To get the needed number of volunteers, the military recruits, which involves advertising.

Any organization which advertises attempts to reach the target most narrowly suited to the message being generated (in this case, preferable to military service). So what is scary about this? What is wrong about this?

Are you arguing that the military shouldn't recruit? If so, are you further arguing that the military shouldn't exist?

If the military should exist and should recruit, what is the problem with the military using the same techniques that every private organization from CocaCola to MoveON uses?

I love systems like this.

[dayid]

I love how people can just "assume" you want to take part in it - and then you have to go out of your way and jump through hoops to be able to "easily opt out." It's the same thing with freaking spam mail and all other crap like that.

Draconian

[N8F8]

Go ahead and rant. Go ahead and tell your kids not to listen to the evil recruiters. At that age you virtually gaurantee they will want to join. The military is a valid career alternative for anyone regardless of their highschool grades or economic status. The military cranks out more skilled tradesmen and managers than any other organization or school.

I went from a 2.4 GPA in highschool to operating a nucleap power plant in two years. When I did finally go to college I was at the top of my class. I credit the Navy for gettign me where I am today.

Re:Draconian

[DarkHelmet]

I went from a 2.4 GPA in highschool to operating a nucleap power plant in two years.

Homer Simpson? I love you man!

Re:Draconian

[idsofmarch]

I went from a 2.4 GPA in highschool to operating a nuclea[r] power plant in two years.

Am I the only one who finds that fact slightly disturbing?

OK... I'll bite

[dsrtegl]

It never ceases to amaze that a large majority of the people on this board have an innate aversion to serve the country that has provided them with the most freedom and liberty of ANY government in the history of man. EVERY amercian owes a debt of gratitude to every soldier, sailor, airman, marine, and coast guardsman who serves or has served this country. Without them, you wouldn't be sitting here on slashdot spouting your displaced self-loathing. Only the last couple of generations of Americans are so self-involved that they cannot see the DUTY, the OBLIGATION for every American to repay the debt and serve at least a 2-year commitment their own country. I am an 8-year (disabled, service-connected) veteran and I appreciate the experience, motivation and pride that came with my service. I am now a much more successful person because of what I learned while in the service of my country. As a result, my work shows more motivation and attention to detail than almost any of my co-workers, and employers DO take note of performance. Yes, there were times when what I was called upon to do had a very high "pucker factor". There were times that I almost lost life and limb. I am thankful that I didn't, but that doesn't mean that I should whine, cry or run away from the responsibility to ensure that the Grand Experiment lives on. By all means, hold hands, sing Cumbaya, but realize the necessity of the defense of our country. And if you don't think islamofacism can spread to your back yard, read this: http://www.detnews.com/2005/oakland/0506/22/B04-22 3573.htm peace, out.

Re:OK... I'll bite

[FauxPasIII]

> It never ceases to amaze that a large majority of the people on this board have an innate aversion to
> serve the country that has provided them with the most freedom and liberty of ANY government in the
> history of man

-nod- This is one of the areas of damage done by the Bush administration that I think doesn't get nearly
enough attention. With the current state of affairs, there is arguably no way for a conscientious American
to serve their country through the military.

When the military is being misused and abused by the civilian leadership in ways that demonstrably
hurt this country and make us less safe, nevermind needlessly sacrificing the soldiers themselves,
what choices is a patriotic American left with in order to serve their country in this way? All I've been
able to come up with is to vote, be politically active, and volunteer for and donate to good organizations
like the Red Cross, the ACLU, BlackBoxVoting.org and Operation Truth.

Re:OK... I'll bite

[pegr]

It never ceases to amaze that a large majority of the people on this board have an innate aversion to serve the country that has provided them with the most freedom and liberty of ANY government in the history of man.

Freedom and liberty are NOT "gifts" from the government, but inalienable rights bestowed by the creator! Governments do NOT serve the interests of man, but their own self-interests! True freedom is defended from government and paid for with the blood of patriots and tyrants!

Love freedom, not government.

Re:OK... I'll bite

[jthayden]

the most freedom and liberty of ANY government in the history of man.

Don't get down to Gitmo too often do you?

I've never been that patriotic, but I did believe that the US was in the top tier of nations that respected human rights and individual freedom. I think we've begun to fall in those regards.

Re:Overreact much?

[sterno]

And, for the record, GPA, etc are *not* public record. The school has to be authorized by the student (or the student's parents/guardians) to release that information. This new plan would give them that.

Actually, readin the article, this new Pentagon plan has nothing to do with that. This plan is merely collating information that they already have. The GPA information was part of previous legislation tied to no child left behind. That I think is a privacy invasion and that that particular of NCLB should be challenged. But the Pentagon's database itself is not the issue.

That's the bad news. The good news...

[bombadier_beetle]

... is that the database is running on MS SQL Server 2000.

Selective Services

[Hrvat]

Selective services already registers you (required by law) if you are a man between ages of 18 through 25. Even if you are a permanent resident. Or on a student visa. This merely widens the record keeping to include a wider age range and both sexes.

You're confusing "country" with "political party".

[khasim]

Listen folks, here's the deal. Many people are opposed to the war, both inside and outside of the military. This is inconcequential to this discussion.

No. You're wrong. There is a REASON that this war is BECOMING unpopular.

And tracking kids so the government can pressure them into fighting such a war is the PROBLEM.

The reality of the entire issue is this: We are a nation founded on revolution and war.

No. Look up "Boston Tea Party". Our country was founded upon the belief in certain Rights.

Our power in the world was won through superior military force.

Only recently. Before that, it was because of our vast natural resources and distance from the established armies of the other nations.

We are currently having difficulty in maintaining that force.

You might want to look at the Founding Fathers' views on a standing military.

Measures are being taken to resolve that issue. Period. Don't cry to me about big brother or dead children.

That sounds a bit too much like "the ends justify the means".

Look at the world around you and realize that the reason you enjoy your freedoms is because of the blood spilt by hundreds of thousands of Americans who paid the price for you.

Here's the flaw in that claim.

Because some people joined the military and fought and died for Freedom does not mean that everyone who dies in the military furthers Freedom.

Check out Kuwait. We "Freed" them from Iraqi invasion ... but they still don't allow women to vote.

This "Freedom" thing is a bit tricky, no?

If people really don't want thier children getting blown up, then don't vote for a president who will go to war so easily.

So people who didn't vote for Bush are exempt from this database?

If you are afraid of "big brother", don't use credit cards, save your money and pay for everything in cash.

And now you're into "blaming the victim".

Why not just make it illegal for those companies to collect that information on me?

Our modern society is productive because of our ability to exploit knowledge opportunities.

That can mean anything from filing a patent on your new, effective, cold fusion generator to filming your neighbor in the shower.

Now that it's being done for the defense of the country, people want to complain.

This is not about "defense of the country". Iraq was no threat to the USofA.

If a marketing company sent you a free box of Tide Detergent in the mail you wouldn't bitch, because you're greedy like that.

Getting a sample box of Tide == tracking kids to target them for recruitment

Right.

Well, you're being given freedom, and it's going to require some computers and research to get it done.

No one "gives" anyone else "Freedom".

And tracking kids is the OPPOSITE of Freedom.

No one forces the hand of the individual to sign the paper.

That is correct. But this isn't about forcing them to sign. This is about tracking them to specifically target them.

So shut up about all the crap, take a deep breath and try not to choke on the sweet air of freedom.

You use that word a lot, but I don't think you understand what it means.

Went to school? Thank a teacher.

Okay, but shouldn't I also thank the people who funded the school system and paid the teachers' salaries?

You are, of course, aware tha

But what else will be done with the information

[Odocoileus]

After serving 6 years in the millitary myself, as an 82nd airborne paratrooper, I am a firm believer that the millitary can really do a whole lot of good for a lot of people- provided your not in an MOS with a short life expectancy. I don't see any harm in the gov't having this information- as long as it is strictly for recuiting purposes.

But as someone else said, this information could, and most likely will, eventually be shared with other agencies. That, I think, is the real evil here.

The Army would "clean him up"?

[ianscot]

It's not like the kid was a crackhead, and these folks figured, probably rightly, that the army might clean him up.

Is that the same Army whose recruiters attempted to commit two clear ethical violations just in the process of getting him in the door? You're right, sounds like a good influence.

I've had three pretty close friends enlist in the services -- two in the Navy, one in the Marines. The levels of alcohol and drug use they described were frighteningly high. That's anecdotal, okay -- but these were straight arrows going in, and they weren't anywhere near clean while they were in uniform. One at least was more Boy Scout than was maybe good for him before he joined. Two of them have returned to those selves after leaving, but the third is a hard drinking, hard smoking, heavily-tattooed and generally scary fellah now. Wants to talk about how cynical he is about "how things work," mostly.

(This story is basically "The services are desperate to recruit, and they got this 'in' in Bush's education bill to do it with." Why are they desperate to recruit? Because W., having talked so much about the armed forces not being ready for confict during the 2000 campaign, has spent his term in office making those predictions come true on his own watch. Everything the guy claimed about Clinton decimating the military's ability to fight, he's done himself in spades.)

Re:The Army would "clean him up"?

[That's Unpossible!]

I've had three pretty close friends enlist in the services -- two in the Navy, one in the Marines. The levels of alcohol and drug use they described were frighteningly high. That's anecdotal, okay -- but these were straight arrows going in, and they weren't anywhere near clean while they were in uniform. One at least was more Boy Scout than was maybe good for him before he joined. Two of them have returned to those selves after leaving, but the third is a hard drinking, hard smoking, heavily-tattooed and generally scary fellah now. Wants to talk about how cynical he is about "how things work," mostly.

How exactly is this different from all my friends who were clean-cut, straight arrows in high school, and then turned into similar beasts as you've described above once in college and on their own?

Re:The Army would "clean him up"?

[Dun Malg]

How exactly is this different from all my friends who were clean-cut, straight arrows in high school, and then turned into similar beasts as you've described above once in college and on their own?

PS: also the one that don't go to college or the military. I think this has more to do with being on one's own for the first time, and learning one's limitations. A cross section of all people age 18-22 is going to show a hefty portion of them partying more than one reasonably should.

Existing petitions to block this...

[mrch0mp3rs]

There is already some organized activity to counter the provision in the No Child Left Behind Act that requires public high schools to hand over private student information to military recruiters. They counter this by supporting, instead, the Student Privacy Protection Act of 2005, which reverses the current legislation and requires schools to first obtain parental permission before releasing private student information to military recruiters.

Here's a link to more information:

http://www.themmob.com/lmca/about.html

No Problemo

[gluteus]

All you have to do is state you're a member of your local Gays for Communism campus club, and they'll leave you alone.

Re:Not Meeting Recruiting Goals = Desperation

[homer_ca]

Navy and Air Force recruiting are still doing ok. Most jobs in the Navy and AF are pretty safe and away from the roadside bombs. Plus the job market for 18 year olds out of high school isn't so hot either.

We have enough people and equipment in the military to do lots of missions like humanitarian and peacekeeping. We can still destroy any other conventional army in the world. We just don't have the people (or the stomach) to do an imperial occupation. Call it what you will, that's the mission now.

Re:Any going to ask why the military is doing this

[mrch0mp3rs]

Any going to ask why the military is doing this? I can tell you. See when the recruiters show up to career day, staff at schools tends to tell them to get lost.

That's a load of crap. I was a teacher for four years, and while I can certainly rant plenty about the deterioration of localized public schooling, I can tell you that especially in depressed and urban areas, you'd be hard pressed to find a teacher who wouldn't counsel a student considering the military to go for it. The vast majority of teachers I've worked with in the midwest are aredent supporters of our armed forces and the character/career building it provides to young men and women.

Take a look at communities like East Chicago; Gary, IN; Flint, MI; Johnstown, PA; Viroqua, WI. These are public schools, and many students from these school systems graduate and serve in the military.

If you don't like the fact that enlistment is low in mid-to-upper-class suburbia, direct your anger elsewhere. Not every kid needs to grow up to be a soldier. We need civilian leaders, too.

My problem with this program is that as active as the government seems to be in enlisting kids (yes, at 16 or 18, you're still a kid), we as a society seem disinterested in encouraging civil leadership in our poorer communities. It would be nice if the military was an "attractive option" instead of the "only option" for these kids.

Re:Why are most military personel middle class?

[dick johnson]

Speaking as a veteran, I would say that the reason is that the easiest way to pay for a college education for a middle class student is to go into the military.

College costs big money. It's not an easy thing for most lower-middle and midde-middle income families to take on the kind of debt that is required to obtain a college degree.

The reality is the United States has a draft today.

It's just an economic draft.

Kids who can afford to pay for college do so. Those who can't afford to pay for it and still want an education go into the military.

Re:Junk Mail

[HeXetic]

http://maddox.xmission.com/junk_the_junk.html

You forgot

[phalse phace]

1. We'll pour huge amounts of money into hiring more mercenary forces to augment our armed forces;
2. We'll reinstate the draft in one form or another;
3. We'll claim victory, pull our troops out, and hope that the Iraqis can sort it out themselves;
4. We'll claim victory, ensconce a substantial number of troops in hardened, remotely-located permanent bases, and hope that the Iraqis can sort it out themselves;
5. We'll get a massive surge in recruitment and will be able to meet our military needs with a full-strength volunteer service.
6. The insurgency will die and a stable Iraqi government will take hold.


You forgot

7. Profit!!!

Vote Libertarian, or it won't really change....

[King_TJ]

I know this is going to be seen as "just more fringe political B.S." by some - but the last few administrations seem like clear evidence to me that it's so.

If the L.P. could garner enough voter support to be viable, their political attitudes and agenda would finally break the cycle. But with the "Republican" vs. "Democrat" status-quo we're working under today - no matter who gets elected, indiividual rights and freedom gets further trampled on. Under the Clinton administration, you had acts like the D.M.C.A. signed into law. With Bush, you have soliders being sent off to die for a war that seems no more likely to ever be won than the "War on Drugs" of the 80's.

Just today, I believe a Supreme Court ruling decided that states DO have the rights to take away individuals' property for ANY reason (not just if they can show it is in the greater public interest to do so). These types of changes happen right under our noses all the time, slowly chiseling away at those grand concepts like "Freedom" that we supposedly fight for in the services.