| |
| |
You are here: Frontpage > Issues > 2496 >
|
|
Babes in arms
David Gee, Informed Choice?
Armed forces recruitment practice
in the United Kingdom (2007; ISBN
9781408641453; 160pp; £5. Also
available free online at
www.informedchoice.org.uk. See
also www.beforeyousignup.info).
CAAT and FoR, Study War No
More: military involvement in UK
universities (2007; Available free online at
www.studywarnomore.org.uk).
Reviewed by SUE WOOD.
Informed Choice? – which created a
considerable stir in the media when
it was released earlier this year – is
essential reading for anyone with an
interest in any aspect of the armed
forces recruitment practice and how
they treat their personnel.
Clear and comprehensive, Gee
documents how recruitment literature emphasises the attractive
aspects of military life, while glossing over the restrictions, risks and
possible psychological pitfalls – with
the word "kill" being notable by its
absence.
For example, in Camouflage
magazine, intended for 13–17–year–old potential recruits, the army's
most powerful weapon, the MLRS –
which indiscriminately scatters
small bombs over an area of up to
24 miles – is described as part of the
army's "cool stuff".
Gee details the lack of clarity in
the complicated terms of service –
particularly regarding how to leave –
and points out that there is no mention of the right of conscientious
objection. Other topics covered in
the report include bullying, suicide
and sexual harassment. Perhaps
unsurprisingly, minors are not
encouraged to take their parents
with them to the careers office!
War no more
Study War No More is intended
"primarily for students, academics,
staff and alumni of UK universities
who wish to see fewer university
departments depending on and
accepting military funding..."
However, although the text is
couched in academic terms, it is a
mustread for anyone who wishes
to understand the extent to which
UK universities are dependent on
military funding in order to further
research, and, indeed, academic
careers.
Due to the secretiveness of competing university departments and
military corporations, the report's
figures for military spending are
merely the minimum which can be
ascertained. Nonetheless, most
readers will be surprised at the
extent to which the military pervades science, technology and
engineering departments and how
much the taxpayer contributes to
military corporations' research
agendas and, consequently, their
profits.
|
|
|
|
