Home / Pentagon Helps Security Moms Prepare Toddlers for Future as “War-Fighters”

Pentagon Helps Security Moms Prepare Toddlers for Future as “War-Fighters”

Please Share...Print this pageTweet about this on TwitterShare on Facebook0Share on Google+0Pin on Pinterest0Share on Tumblr0Share on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

American parents, even those whose kids aren’t quite comfortable in bigboy pants yet, are facing up to the fact that those cute little tykes will be trading in their Lion King jammies for battle fatigues in just a few short years.

Moms and Dads won’t have to go it alone, though. Washington is already on the case, with programs well underway to help parents revise their plans for their child’s future.

With existing expendable troops already stretched to the breaking point, and occupation areas widening, whether it’s called a draft or Empowering Youth with the Privilege of the Highest Form of National Service, one way or another, today’s toddlers have a lot better chance of spending their teen years in a barracks than on a campus.

While it’s true that at least for the first few years, the heaviest burden will be drawn from America’s urban slums and barrios, the rural backwaters and dying little townvilles, it is inevitable that the concurrent transitions to a 2-class, single-industry society will impact the suburbs before today’s avid Yu-gi-oh aficionado proudly picks up a can of Foamy for his first shave.

Even if mom and dad manage somehow to hold on to the dwindling available spaces in America’s legendary Promised Land of dental insurance and savings accounts and Dad’s special English muffin pizzas on Sunday night, the necessary consolidation and downsizing of non-defense-related business endeavors will leave even the most fortunate of sons with a choice of battle theatre, not a choice of careers.

He will, however, still be better off than his less fortunate neighbor, who will go where he is sent.

A cursory glance at a world map tells the story. In order to secure natural resources and transport thereof, it will be necessary to occupy quite a large land mass, all of it inhabited by populations so hostile that they believe that both land and resources belong to them, and not the United States.

Even concentrating efforts only on those areas critical to resource extraction, it is still a daunting task, as the Afghanistan operation shows.

Even after 3 years of occupation, carpet bombing and massive crackdowns, the US has still been unable even to establish a secure corridor for pipeline construction. If every troop in Iraq were moved to Afghanistan, it is debatable whether even that would be sufficient to accomplish the mission.

Obtaining additional personnel from “allies” is a popular mantra, especially with the left, but the allies simply do not have the kind of population, much less soldiers.

Both the US and Somalia chose not to ratify the Convention on the Rights of the Child. Indeed, the provision against child soldiers alone precludes the document from being in the interests of the military goals of either entity.

At this time it is not known when, or by how much, the US will be obliged to lower the minimum age for military service, and it is reasonable to assume that Washington anticipates that there will be some domestic opposition to this and other essential measures, but forward-thinking policy makers have laid solid groundwork to counter and neutralize such eventualities, and as can be seen from recent events, significant dissent in the US is easily diverted by press conferences alone.

Some questions from the education and social science sectors on the utility value of gunmen of a very young age are unavoidable, but military strategists have only to point to Africa, where some very impressive results have been noted using troops as young as seven, especially with the aid of appropriate medications, and US pharmaceutical companies have a long history of stepping up to the plate to do their part to help America’s soldiers get the job done.

For folks with the resources (read money) there will always be options, ways to buy your kid’s way out of Abu Ghraib guard duty, but as the middle class dwindles, more and more moms and dads are getting used to the idea of being “military families.”

Powered by

About DuctapeFatwa

  • Shark

    Ductape is spot on, IMO. Great essay, great responses.

    Meanwhile, I’m trying to invest in camo diapers… y’know, fer kids.

  • Dawn

    It doesn’t matter if DF wrote this post with a smirk or a grimace, the information presented, with the right leader, could drive a trend in this country one way or the other.

    The question is, which way do we want the trend driven.

    I understand the conservative angle and their concern for security, but how far is too far? Is there no end to the right’s agenda? Will we stop with Iraq?

    At some point, people in this country will grow weary of the death, destruction and desperation. And no matter how many fucking, psycho warmongering shit-for-brains the right dredges up from the sewers of hell spewing their propaganda of fear and hate into the ears of middle America’s average moms, “security moms” or fucking house fraus, people will say ENOUGH is ENOUGH.

    Hopefully it will be sooner rather than later.

    You know how sick I am of hearing the relentless dribble that’s coming out of the current administration’s mouths about how THEY are the only people who can protect our families? Fear is the opiate of the masses, that and religion – and this administration has doubled doses of both.

    It’s sneaky and it’s underhanded and a waste of valuable resources.

  • Eric, I think it is a matter of perspective. The criminal and his victim will always have a different perspective of the crime. I think I posted a link here to the “Demonization of the Moderates” (http://ductapefatwa.blogspot.com/2004_03_01_ductapefatwa_archive.html)
    rant I did a while back, and I think it might help to answer your question, although I doubt that it will cause you to change your mind about anything, nor is it my intention to try to convince you to change it.

    You can also look back through history even further. During the time when slavery was the law of the land, African-Americans were offially classified as being two thirds human, and it was legal to hunt Native Americans like deer or rabbits. Actually that was legal twenty years after the abolition of slavery.

    During that time, people who disagreed with those policies didn’t hear many kind words from their neighbors. There was a disagreement there so fundamental, so unreconcilable, that some believe it was a contributing factor in the domestic armed conflict that took place in the United States almost a century and a half ago.

    More recently, I have heard popular Christian leaders like Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell explain that plush cartoon characters without genitals have sexual preference and that bad weather is caused by gay people and feminists.

    They, too, have a perspective, and it is unlikely that they would be able to change my mind on those issues, nor I theirs, nor would I attempt to do so.

    They have access to the same material that I do, they happen to draw different conclusions from it as I do.

    I’m not sure I can answer your question any better than that, people are different, and have different views on things.

    RedTard, John Ashcroft will be verrrry interested to know that you have been clicking blogs of interest. When the black helicopter appears, do not resist, just go quietly and maybe you will be given an all-cotton jumpsuit. That poly-blend stuff is so sticky in the tropical heat.

  • NO, RedTard, I’m saying what I’m saying not what you’re saying I’m saying.

    Your post seemed to have a loony message that indicated it was bloggers from the left exercising their rights of free speech that caused the terrorist attacks, including 9/11.

    That’s just nuts.

  • Eric Olsen

    DF, I know the sources, have read most of the material, understand the implications of your position, but what you always manage to duck, like a skilled matador, is explaining the concpetual framework that has led you to the particular worldview you espouse, one which is aggressively anti-American far beyond the range of the most anti-American Americans.

    Apparently you hold your own perspective as “the” perspective, so much so that you can’t even see your view as coming from a conceptual framework – you assume that framework IS reality, not just framework. I consider this strange and doctrinaire at best.

  • RedTard

    Wow, a person on the left arguing individual responsibility. What your essentially saying is that “Ideas don’t kill people, people kill people.”

    I just don’t agree with that.

  • I don’t see how American bloggers, RedTard, can possibly be complicit in the terrorist attacks on America just because they disagree with you.

    Is that representative of the thinking of the entire Right fringe, or just you?

  • RedTard

    Actions like Sep 11 do not happen in a vaccuum. Long before those hijackers ever stepped foot on the planes the damage had been done. They were brainwashed with the same type of garbage propaganda that is spewed from Fatwa’s weblog.

  • bhw

    Propaganda CAN be dangerous. It’s not always. I’m sure you don’t think that the things Bush says are dangerous, do you? Well, they fit the definition of propaganda. But I’m sure that only the views you disagree with are a) considered propaganda and b) considered as dangerous as a terrorist attack.

  • RedTard

    Propaganda is dangerous.

  • bhw

    Hmmm… now expressing an opinion in a blog is likened to mass murder by airliner hijaking?

  • RedTard

    As usual I am greatly surprised by the resourcefulness and dogged determination of the anti-American forces in this world. Whether it is hijacking an airliner with a boxcutter or simply spreading the seeds of hate with online propaganda you people are more efficient and productive than any evil corporate entity could ever hope to be.

  • Eric, apparently I am not understanding your question.

    There is ample material available on the subject of US policy, both historic and contemporary. My posts here have included links to a number of books on the subject, if you prefer offline resources.

    Dude, if you will examine the “signatures” on the PNAC documents, and read them thoroughly in conjunction with events over the last few years, if the names on the PNAC documents are unfamiliar to you, you might consider googling them to get an idea of what their policy-making involvement might be. I think you will find that very little is secret or conjecture, and as for the seriousness of intent, those who have lost loved ones will certainly have a different view than those who have benefitted financially, but in my opinion, few in either group would question the seriousness of the matter.

  • It looks like the author is reading the neoconservative PNAC literature and taking them seriously, perhaps making projections that go further than you would if you read their materials.

    Me too, but I strongly recommend you read at least some of the Project For the NEW AMERICAN CENTURY materials – it does get scary and did foreshadow the invasion of Iraq.

  • Eric Olsen

    that is swell, but I am waiting to hear how you chose your particular interpretation of this information, the filter through which you appear to sift all information on the U.S.

  • Look here

    although the “bush” in this case refers to the former CIA director as opposed to his son, I still think this site has some useful information if you are interested.

    Here is a sample quote: defense of U.S. vital interests in the region, if necessary through the use of military force; and defense against forces that would cause added damage to the U.S. and world economies


    is more recent, here is a sample quote

    …And advanced forms of biological warfare
    that can “target” specific genotypes may
    transform biological warfare from the realm
    of terror to a politically useful tool….


    If you are interested in delving further back into history, you could try googling Henry Kissinger, Woodrow Wilson, either of which will point you to a wealth of information from a variety of sources.

  • Eric Olsen

    this is based on an assumption that you know what those goals are – what leads you to believe that you know what those goals are?

  • Addendum:

    I am sorry if you feel I have left a question unanswered. In a previous post, where I described a scenario where the United States is invaded by a foreign power, everything in it was taken from recent news stories reporting US activities in Iraq.

    I think that throughout history you will find that people do not react positively to being invaded, having their homes destroyed, their children variously maimed, tortured, raped or slaughtered. A certain level of antagonism is unavoidable.

    As I have said before, the two positions are not, in my opinion, reconcilable, whether it is one country invading another, or if I kick in your door, harm your family and steal the silver.

    Now once back in my thieves’ lair, I may present very eloquent arguments that are extremely convincing to my comrades, especially if I give them some of the silver. They may even help me kick in the door of your neighbor, in that case. But I do not think it is realistic to expect your neighbor to be any less antagonistic when it is their own child who lies bleeding, even if I have had the kindness to drop a leaflet in their yard beforehand outlining my position on the matter.

  • My intention in my previous post was not to attempt to either antagonize or argue that western goals, etc. are “wrong,” but to point out that achieving them presents challenges that Leopold did not have in the Congo.

  • Eric Olsen

    okay dokey, but as I have asked before, with the answer not ye forthcoming, is how one arrives at such a relentlessly antagonistic view of American ideals, practices, motivations, and options – a view that makes Chomsky look like the chamber of Commerce

  • The tone may be a little “sarcastic,” but the choices faced by the US if it is to achieve its military and economic objectives are quite limited. The native overseer/client state module is becoming too costly, at the same time as it is declining in effectiveness.

    I realize that the standard American response to this argument is “just nuke it all,” however if you put yourself in the position of the American oil company employee who will be living and working in the nuclear wasteland, supervising the Filipino dollar-a-days, or more appropriately, if you put yourself in the position of his survivors, you may begin to have some misgivings about this option.

    If you are part of the oil company’s legal team, it is unlikely that you will be a proponent of “nuke it all.”

    While the US could easily legislate a waiver for illness, injury or death that might result from employment in a hazardous area for companies in certain industries, that would put the oil companies in an awkward position recruitment-wise.

    There could also be some unforseen impact on the resources themselves. Radioactive oil might not generate the profits its extractors had hoped.

    Technology has changed things in many areas of life, from weapons, both type and availability, to mobility, and it would not be wise to underestimate the advances in communication. Today, for the first time in the history of human activity, it is possible for any human being to communicate in real time, with any other human being almost anywhere on earth, as long as both have access to modems and a common language.

    This has dramatically impacted smooth implementation of US policy, not so much domestically, where careful media strategies have largely desensitized the US news-watching and voting sectors, who have developed a variety of techniques to variously justify, applaud, or refuse to believe many aspects of how their tax dollars are spent, but among the target populations, it is a different story.

    Not everybody in the Majority World has internet access, far from it, but more people than ever before have access to information today, whether an internet cafe, or a cousin who has been to a city with an internet cafe, and the nature of US operations necessarily renders them somewhat transparent in the field: people cannot ignore the fact that it was a US operative who shot their brother in law.

    There have also been some social changes. While it is true that the US has managed for decades to control large populations by the simple technique of identifying native overseer candidates from the target nation who are capable and willing to sell their grandmothers for the right price, this method is becoming less effective and exponentially more costly.

    Think of this: Less than a half century ago, in the United States, racial apartheid was the law of the land, and it was not difficult to find even African-Americans who would, even when no whites were listening, express their sincere view that this was as it should be. Today, one would be hard pressed to find even an elderly African-American anywhere in the United States who would agree with such a view.

    As the blip of pre-eminence of Europe (and spawn) fades from the radar screen, the notion that Sahib knows what is best continues to decline in popularity throughout the Majority World, and while some westerners, especially Americans, are quite sincere in their closely-held belief in Manifest Destiny and the innate superiority of white western culture, the victims of the doctrine who share it grow smaller in number.

    The two views are irreconcilable. I remember reading somewhere about a lady expressing her frustration over trying to discuss gender issues with relatives in rural Latin America. “There is,” she said, “not much conversation to be had with someone who believes as deeply and unshakably that you are property as you believe they are not.”

    That illustrates the unbridgeable gap. The United States simply cannot keep pouring money down the holes of even the most obligingly draconian regimes in the face of the groundswell of conviction among the rank and file populace that the land, the resources, and they themselves are not the property of either the United States nor the native overseer, and the vast armies of secret police, torturers and death squads find themselves, and their own families at increasing risk from both directions – the native overseer insists that they murder their countrymen when directed to do so – this is his job, if he does not do it, he loses the dollars, and possibly his life. At the same time, the intended targets’ tolerance for dollahoism and collaboration dwindles. The death squad leader demands more money from the native overseer, who must pay him or eliminate him, and his replacement will not be on the job long before he too demands more, and that more must come from the American taxpayers.

    The taxpayers are more than happy to pay for it, as long as they do not have to see photographs of the wetwork, but the present system has reached the point of diminishing returns.

    It was hoped that Taliban-esque faith-based control would do the job, but that too has its limits – and its glitches.

    The Democratic nominee himself has remarked on this, criticizing the Republican incumbent for “outsourcing” US wetwork in target nations.

    The only chance of securing the resources for the US, even with the implementation of population reduction strategies so intensive as to jeopardize US contractors and resource extraction personnel and all the potential legal vulnerability that presents for the key defense and energy sectors, is a Guantanamo-style lockdown of the very considerable non-liquidated population, and when one considers applying this to a swath of stretching from South Asia to the Mediterrenean, with tributaries encompassing Indonesia, Africa, and Latin America, the limited efficacy of the client state module, for reasons stated above, becomes apparent.

    Achieving the goal can only be done with boots on the ground. Lots and lots and lots of boots. The combined population to be subdued is well over twice that of the entire population of the United States, including infants, the very elderly, and the infirm.

    Even the impressment of every ambulatory soul residing in the United States from 7 to 75 years of age will not be sufficient.

    But it will be a start. And combined with maximum-benefit use of sustained population reduction, and added to, not replacing, the client state system, it will be possible for the United States to accomplish a good part of its objectives, at least in the short term.

    The long term is hardly relevant.

  • Eric Olsen

    I vote “sarcasm” – I wonder, however, if the author sees this scenario as nightmare or utopia.


    You are deluded, or sarcastic.