X-Envelope-to: DISARM-L@ALBNYVM1.BITNET
X-VMS-To: DISARM
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.disarm-l
Date:         Thu, 16 Apr 1992 07:37:00 EST
From:         CATHYF%EARLHAM.bitnet@UACSC2.ALBANY.EDU
Subject:      RE:War and Other Violence

    It might be of interest for me to post my private response to
someone who suggested that the increase in crime rates we've seen since
WWII may have more to do with increased urbanization than the wars. He
asked if I knew of any documentation to back up Max Clabaugh's
suggestion of the correlation with military training in the "War and
Other Violence" post.
                    Peace, Cathy Flick
--------------------------------
April 13, 1992
   I don't know about documentation, but there's plenty of anecdotal
evidence. I certainly saw an effect on my brother, although he was
older than the average Vietnam draftee so it was primarily manifested
as increased cynicism and inertia. I think the young ones are the
ones most at risk for "internalizing" the military lessons-- the
average age of the US soldier in Vietnam was about 19 years old, and
the Pentagon has objected to international proposals restricting
soldiers to 18 yrs old minimum because they like to get the
17-yr olds in their "early entry" program, right in the high schools.
   A local Vietnam combat veteran who was especially disturbed about
the Gulf War mania said it took him 10 years to really recover
emotionally from the experience. And he was somebody who was at
least aware of his problem.
   The Pentagon has made public claims that Gulf War vets have shown
no problems, but anecdotes are surfacing revealing many problems. You
might take a look in a recent In These Times (within the past month,
I think) for an extensive report by somebody who has interviewed
Gulf War vets.
   I also know a WWII vet who is (among other things) a psychological
counselor who told me that the government also downplayed the effect
of WWII on returning soldiers. He says the very obvious problems with
Vietnam vets at least turned some public attention to it.
   Actually, I would find it hard to believe that there is NO effect on
a person just from basic training. My friend the career Air Force man
(retired at rank of Lt. Col.) said the purpose of basic training was
to dehumanize the person. It really isn't natural to go out and kill
strangers on command, especially for dubious purposes.
           Peace, Cathy Flick
P.S. The fellow writing the letter [correlating increased violence at
home with military training and wars] was noting a change in his own
area, even without the other changes that you mention. Indiana is still
rather rural and small-townish. Our only "first-class" city (according
to definition of same) is Indianapolis, and that's at the very low
end of such cities (well under 1 million people, I think it might be
about 700,000) and really has more of a "small-town" flavor than I've
seen in other "big" cities.
------------------
Postscript for DISARM-L:
   In addition, I might also say that there is no need for the
"dehumanizing" experiences basic trainees are subjected to if all you
want is to prepare people for true defense. The kind of military
training our government and others give is meant to provide soldiers for
more dubious purposes: unjust wars that have nothing to do with defense
and also suppression of internal dissent.
   The loss of certain basic civil rights by US soldiers upon induction
or enlistment and the penalties against those who refuse to participate
in specific wars also would not be necessary if the military were
intended purely for real defense. These are the kinds of things you do
only when you need to threaten people into compliance, even against
their own conscience or common sense. Imagine if only those soldiers who
truly believed President Bush's rhetoric accepted deployment to the
Gulf... My brother (and most others) certainly would never have gone to
Vietnam if it were not for the threat of jail if he refused the draft.
He was more afraid of the certain effects of an American prison sentence
than the uncertain effects of encounters with the Viet Cong. (Hope
springs eternal.)
    But in such really important matters, our government does not
believe in true democracy and freedom any more than its so-called
"enemies". Perhaps this is an inevitable problem when a few people have
the power to make life and death decisions for a large population, and
another good argument in favor of breaking down into smaller
governmental units.
                 Peace, Cathy Flick
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU