This Week: Militarization of a Culture

"Quote" of the Week

"Here it Is More about Changing Perceptions"

The Boy Scouts: "Good Deeds Have a Whole New Meaning"

Greetings,

First of all, the recent Nygaard Notes Pledge Drive was a success! Thank you to ALL of the Pledgers, both renewing Pledgers and those of you who made your very first Pledge in support of Nygaard Notes. I particularly appreciate the very encouraging and inspiring notes that many of you have sent in along with your donations. I continue to be amazed that a truly independent publication like Nygaard Notes can survive in an economy in crisis. And not only survive, but continue to grow and—apparently, judging by your notes—to inspire people. Thank you!

What I've been doing over the past month (besides writing thank-you notes and completely replacing my computer system) is conducting a large amount of research on the relationship between Empire, ideology, and militarism. I'm interested in taking a deep look at what is it inside of us—and outside of us—that allows the needs of Empire to increasingly corrupt and impoverish so many in our world. I had imagined that this theme would be the subject of a series of its own, picking up where the Empire series left off last month. Sort of "The Empire Series, Part II." But it's not going to work like that. It's too big.

What I am going to do instead is to publish many pieces, in no particular order, over a long time, making this a sort-of occasional series that I hope to tie together at some point. The two pieces you see this week are the first two piece in this process, and they begin to hint at the degree of militarization of our society that, while not new, is evolving in the 21st Century in particular ways, both obvious and not-so-obvious. Researching the not-so-obvious is what has been taking so much time in the past month, which partly explains the long gap since the last issue.

So, here we are, in the wake of a successful Pledge Drive, ready to delve deeper into our investigations of the ideas and institutions that shape our lives. The reason we delve so deeply is that this is what's needed to understand the depth of the changes we need to build a joyful and moral society. So let's get to it.

In solidarity,

Nygaard

"Quote" of the Week:

This past month the amazing historian, activist, and teacher Howard Zinn passed away. In honor of his life and work, this week's "Quote" of the Week is from a 2004 article in The Nation magazine entitled "The Optimism of Uncertainty." Here are the closing words from that article:

"To be hopeful in bad times is not just foolishly romantic. It is based on the fact that human history is a history not only of cruelty, but also of compassion, sacrifice, courage, kindness.

What we choose to emphasize in this complex history will determine our lives. If we see only the worst, it destroys our capacity to do something. If we remember those times and places—and there are so many—where people have behaved magnificently, this gives us the energy to act, and at least the possibility of sending this spinning top of a world in a different direction.

And if we do act, in however small a way, we don't have to wait for some grand utopian future. The future is an infinite succession of presents, and to live now as we think human beings should live, in defiance of all that is bad around us, is itself a marvelous victory."

"Here it Is More about Changing Perceptions"

Early in 2009 something called the Army Experience Center (AEC) got a bit of free publicity from the corporate media. There were various stories about the Center floating around, but the piece I heard appeared on National Public Radio, the Weekend All Things Considered program. It was headlined "Army Complex - Arcade Or Recruiting Center?" The story seemed to indicate that the "complex" is both an arcade and a recruiting center, but that's not the real story here. The story is that the AEC is, first and foremost, a Propaganda center. And the Army itself more-or-less says so, had NPR been able to hear it. These twin stories—about Pentagon Propaganda in the post-9/11 world and the media's unconscious amplification of it—are the subject of this essay.

Before we go any further I want to remind readers of a basic principle of Public Relations. Back in Nygaard Notes #315 I quoted the infamous Edward Bernays, the so-called Father of Public Relations, explaining the principle. He was writing in his 1928 book "Propaganda" about one of the big issues of his day, which was tariffs (how much of a tax to place on imports). Bernays explained that, before a propagandist got around to overtly addressing the issue at hand, first he or she should arrange for a bunch of what we would now call "PR stunts" designed to draw public attention to the issue. Once he had done that, Bernays wrote, "In whatever ways [a political leader] dramatized the issue, the attention of the public would be attracted to the question before he addressed them personally. Then, when he spoke to his millions of listeners on the radio, he would not be seeking to force an argument down the throats of a public thinking of other things and annoyed by another demand on its attention; on the contrary, he would be answering the spontaneous questions and expressing the emotional demands of a public already keyed to a certain pitch of interest in the subject."

So here's the PR principle: Whatever seeds a propagandist wishes to plant will only grow if they are planted in receptive soil. Therefore, the effective propagandist must always attend to the work of preparing the soil to receive her or his propaganda "seeds." Keep this principle in mind as we review the NPR story on the Army Experience Center.

An "Educational Facility." Right.

It was in August of 2008 that the Army opened what it called the "Army Experience Center," or AEC, in the Franklin Mills Mall in Philadelphia. NPR ran a story on the AEC the following January, describing it as a "14,000-square-foot, virtual educational facility." NPR host Rebecca Roberts told listeners that "It's as slick and gadget-heavy as an Apple store. You can climb in the simulators—a Humvee and a Blackhawk helicopter as well as the Apache [helicopter, which Roberts herself was operating]—you can plan a mission in the high-tech tactical operations center, or just play a lot of video games, both Army-issue and standard-issue Xbox games."

NPR's only source for information on the Army Experience Center (save for a few teenagers playing the arcade games) was the guy who runs the place, Major Larry Dillard. Listen to what he said when the NPR reporter asked him "Do you consider this a recruiting center?"

Dillard: "It's really much more than that. So if you look at a traditional recruiting center, there is really not a lot of ways to get a virtual experience about what the Army might be like. It's really just an office to process applicants into the Army. And what we're really trying to do here is use this as a vehicle to communicate a lot about the Army. Now certainly, if someone comes in, and they're interested in what they see, and they want to join the Army, we can do that here."

The Army put out its own news story on the opening of the AEC a few months before the NPR story, in which they quote one Ryan Hansen of Ignited Corporation, "who partnered with the Army on the project." The fact that Ignited is an advertising agency—and not a human resources agency nor an entertainment agency—should have tipped off NPR as to the "arcade or recruitment center" issue, but apparently it didn't. Mr. Hansen frankly describes the public relations point of it all: "The center is an attraction tool. There is no recruiting mission here," Hansen said. "Here it is more about changing perceptions." Ah, yes, "changing perceptions." The essence of Public Relations.

The advertising professional mis-spoke slightly when he said that "there is no recruiting mission here." What he meant was that there is no direct recruiting mission. Listen to Major Dillard again:

"People who have some relationship to the Army growing up, whether it's because they live close to a base or because they're from a military family, are far more likely to join our ranks. If you understand the Army, then you're inclined to think highly of it and join the Army, but if you've never had that exposure, you're probably not going to join the Army. You're not going to consider that as an option when you're either getting out of high school or college."

Now, if what he says is true—and there's every reason to think it is, as I'm sure they have studied it endlessly—why might "exposure" to the Army make one "far more likely" to sign up? Well, it has to do with the nature of the exposure, of course. Let's think about Dillard's two examples: "military families" and the neighbors of military facilities.

The Family, The Neighbors, The Employer

If you are from a "military family," what that means is that you have grown up with people who have either chosen to remain in the military over a long period (career military people), or that your family has a large number of people who have all chosen shorter-term commitments to being in the military. There may be a variety of reasons for this, ranging from a belief in the virtue of military service to a belief that the military option is the best economic choice available, or any number of other reasons. Whatever the reasons these people may have for making the military their career choice, the odds are low that they will end up trying to talk their children out of signing up for the same life that they have chosen. So it makes sense that children from such families are "far more likely to join our ranks" than non-military families.

What about "living close to a base"? Let's have a look at just one of the hundreds of U.S. counties with military bases. Kitsap County in Washington State, population nearly a quarter-million, is home to Naval Base Kitsap, the Keyport Undersea Warfare Center, and a naval shipyard. According to a recent study by the Washington State Office of Financial Management, "About 54 percent of all economic activity in Kitsap County is directly and indirectly linked to the personnel and procurements at these bases." That amounts to about $1.3 billion in direct economic impact (employment, payrolls, retiree pension, payments to private health care providers, and purchases of goods and services from local vendors), and the indirect impact (the so-called "multiplier effect") adds to the total. Employment at the bases adds up to 46,935 within the county. Total private sector employment in the county is only about 60,000.

The overall picture is thus one of overwhelming dependence on the military for the economic health of Kitsap county. And the number of people in Kitsap county who thus "have some relationship to the Army" is likely to be extremely high. In fact, a large number of the neighbors are likely to be "military families," in one sense or another, since their careers are either in the military or in serving and supplying the military. These people are not likely to talk badly about the source of their livelihood.

So there's no need for an "Army Experience Center" in Kitsap County. In contrast, as the NPR story tells us, "Philadelphia has almost no local Army presence and "when the Army is not around... recruiting numbers suffer." In fact, Major Dillard told NPR that before the opening of the AEC Philadelphia "was about the worst—one of the very worst—recruiting markets we had." However, the Major said that "When we built the Army Experience Center, we shut down five recruiting stations and halved the number of recruiters. In the last couple of months, we've had the same number of recruits that the old recruiting stations in this area did."

Now remember our PR Principle about preparing the soil for Propaganda. What is the basic Propaganda of recruiting? It's the idea that a stint in the military is the best option for the target of the Propaganda. How would you prepare the "soil" for that seed to flourish? One way is to rely on word-of-mouth within "military families" and people employed by or profiting from military bases and industrial activities. The other way is to "educate" people with certain images and ideas about what military life is all about. And, of course, that includes making every effort to prevent certain other, less appealing, images and ideas from seeing the light of day.

The NPR reporter referenced the nature of the "education" offered by the AEC when she reminded the Major that "a large part of what soldiers do is fight wars. And if this center aims to represent Army life accurately, violence and danger must be part of it." She then added, " On the other hand, kids as young as 13 come through here who aren't soldiers, and they might not be ready for all that reality."

"What We Do As Soldiers Is Dangerous"

The Major leaped on that, claiming that "We are not trying to hide the fact that sometimes, what we do as soldiers is dangerous... You've got to be careful about making it too violent and inappropriate for some people and so, it is a fine line. But I think we tend to err on the side of trying to be as realistic as we can."

So much for the softball tossed to the Army by NPR. It was up to the influential PR industry publication "Advertising Age," in their article on the AEC, to quote Robert Weissman, managing director of Commercial Alert, on the nature of the beast. "Mr. Weissman," according to The Age, "said regardless of the educational nature of the Army's new programs, they are still, at the core, branding exercises." Weissman says that, at the AEC, "you see the glamorization and romanticism of the military in a context that is targeted at kids who don't probably have broader vantage points to understand [the] complexity of military operations."

When the Major said that "we are not trying to hide the fact" that being a soldier is "dangerous," he is referring to is the very real physical danger faced by soldiers. But knowledge of that type of danger is only one reason that potential recruits might hesitate to sign up, and one that can be overcome with appeals to courage, bravery, and sacrifice. But beyond physical danger lurks a problem that might, and should, give pause to those being asked to become a part of "The Service." And that problem is this: Some might not agree with the reasons that we are being asked to drop the bombs and shoot the guns, to kill and to die. Exploring those reasons would be a real education, but such explorations cannot be found in Army-issue video games or Apache Helicopter simulators.

The Pentagon just this month released its 2010 "Quadrennial Defense Review," a public (if little-reported) review of the nation's military strategy. This year's Review calls for "more focus and investment in a new air-sea battle concept, long-range strike, space and cyberspace, among other conventional and strategic" programs of violence, all aimed not at "defense," but at protecting "our military's ability to project power." As the Review tells the world, "The United States is a global power with global responsibilities. Including operations in Afghanistan and Iraq, approximately 400,000 U.S. military personnel are forward-stationed or rotationally deployed around the world." And, "as a global power, the strength and influence of the United States are deeply intertwined with the fate of the broader international system..."

Given that the United States has an All-Volunteer Military, those 400,000 military personnel all have to be persuaded to sign up for the work. And here's where the Propaganda kicks in. Recall that the Pentagon's partner in PR, from the Ignited advertising agency, said that the Army Experience Center is "more about changing perceptions" than it is about recruiting. But why, we must ask, is it important for the Army to "change perceptions?"

Whatever seeds a propagandist wishes to plant will only grow if they are planted in receptive soil. Therefore, the effective propagandist must always attend to the work of preparing the soil to receive her or his propaganda "seeds."

The "seed" in this case is the recruiting pitch. The "soil" is the attitude about the military and military service. If military service is seen as a good thing, a noble thing, then it is far more likely that the recruiting seed will sprout. And for that calling to seen as good and noble, then the mission and role of the U.S. military in the larger society must be perceived as good and noble, as well.

The Propaganda function of the AEC is revealed by what is not said far more than by what is said. No questioning of the rightness of Empire will be heard in the AEC. No discussion of the anti-democratic nature of our massive military establishment will be heard in the AEC. Little complexity will be allowed in the AEC that might muddy the "good guys/bad guys" world of the Army. "Here it is more about changing perceptions."

By failing to cast light into the dark corners of the AEC Propaganda, NPR consciously or (more likely) unconsciously, enables the Army to extend its message far beyond a mall in Philadelphia. And all for free! If the U.S. had a State Media it couldn't do much better.

There's a larger lesson here about the role of the media in helping to illuminate the world. That lesson has to do with the very common misconception that the closer one is to a story, the better one understands it. This is not necessarily the case, in news reporting or anywhere else. I would argue that many things are better understood from a distance. Exactly how this works I will discuss in the next edition of Nygaard Notes. Stay tuned.

The Boy Scouts: "Good Deeds Have a Whole New Meaning"

The Boy Scouts of America (BSA) was incorporated almost exactly 100 years ago, on February 8, 1910. So I thought it might be a good time to comment on this "values-based youth development organization," as it calls itself. I'll use a recent article from the New York Times to shed a little light on the group founded by British General Robert Baden-Powell.

This past May of 2009 the New York Times ran a front-page article on the Boy Scouts of America. But it wasn't just about the Boy Scouts, it was about the "whole new meaning" that is being given to the famous "good deeds" that have long been associated with the Boy Scouts. In fact, the headline of the piece was "For Explorer Scouts, Good Deeds Have Whole New Meaning."

(Before I go any further, I should probably confess that I, myself, was expelled from the Cub Scouts at age 10 for some infraction or other. I recall it being a great relief. While I don't think this has affected my ability to think clearly about the institution of Scouting, it may have. Anyway, now you know; full disclosure and all that.)

The Explorers program, the Times tells us, is "a coeducational affiliate of the Boy Scouts of America that began 60 years ago." The article points to "an intense ratcheting up of one of the group's longtime missions to prepare youths for more traditional jobs as police officers and firefighters." Some of us were not aware that it was the mission of the Boy Scouts to prepare kids to be cops, but I wondered about this "intense ratcheting up," and so kept reading to find out what it was that the Explorer Scouts were up to now. Well, at least in the county that was the focus of this article—Imperial County in California, "the poorest in the state"—the Explorer program "is training thousands of young people in skills used to confront terrorism, illegal immigration and escalating border violence."

The article tells us that "Many law enforcement officials, particularly those who work for the rapidly growing Border Patrol, part of the Homeland Security Department, have helped shape the program's focus and see it as preparing the Explorers as potential employees. The Explorer posts are attached to various agencies, including the Federal Bureau of Investigation and local police and fire departments, that sponsor them much the way churches sponsor Boy Scout troops. ‘Our end goal is to create more agents,' said April McKee, a senior Border Patrol agent and mentor at the session here."

The Boy Scouts of America (BSA) National Council launched the "Learning For Life" program as a subsidiary of BSA in 1991 to offer a "values-based curriculum" to kids around the country. Here's the Times again: "In a competition in Arizona that he did not oversee, Deputy Lowenthal
[A. J. Lowenthal, a sheriff's deputy in Imperial County] said, one role-player wore traditional Arab dress. ‘If we're looking at 9/11 and what a Middle Eastern terrorist would be like,' he said, ‘Then maybe your role-player would look like that. I don't know, would you call that politically incorrect?"

No, I'd call it part of a "values-based curriculum," one that reflects a highly-militarized society, and a jingoistic one, at that.

The Explorer program—a subsidiary of the Boy Scouts—has 145,000 members, with the "law enforcement" career option being "the Explorers' most popular, accounting for 35,000" of the total Scouts enrolled. While the program has long trained Scouts for "more traditional jobs as police officers and firefighters," everything is different since 9/11. Commenting on the law enforcement training now offered in the Explorer program, Johnny Longoria, a Border Patrol agent, told the Times, "Before it was more about the basics. But now our emphasis is on terrorism, illegal entry, drugs and human smuggling."

What is all this about? you may wonder. According to A. J. Lowenthal, a sheriff's deputy in Imperial County, "This is about being a true-blooded American guy and girl. It fits right in with the honor and bravery of the Boy Scouts."

The Learning for Life program apparently is highly localized, and certainly not every local program is as xenophobic as this one appears to be. Still, the degree of acceptance of such a militarized training of young people is indicated in this comment by the Times: "If there are critics of the content or purpose of the law enforcement training, they have not made themselves known to the Explorers' national organization in Irving, Tex., or to the volunteers here on the ground, national officials and local leaders said."

Training young kids to help with the socially-needed service of law enforcement may well be legitimate. But why no training in the enforcement skills needed to enforce white-collar crime? As the ongoing financial meltdown and destruction of our industrial base might indicate, such crimes arguably costs the nation far more than "illegal entry" and "drugs."

The answer to that question is revealed, in part, by the comment that a 16-year-old Explorer named Cathy made to the Times. Cathy "said she was attracted by the guns," adding "I like shooting them. I like the sound they make. It gets me excited."