The Military and Citizenship

The idea of allowing non-citizens who serve in our military access to citizenship is certainly fair. In-fact, I find the notion of not allowing immigrants who are willing to make such a sacrifice for our country access to citizenship to be reprehensible. If non-citizens are allowed to serve, they must be allowed to become citizens for doing so. The question that I feel must be asked in response to the articles of Wong, Moscoso and Bender, then, is should non-citizens be allowed to serve in our military at all? When answering this question I think it is important to distinguish between resident non-citizens and foreigners who do not even live in the United States. Questions of taking advantage of the poor or underprivileged aside, (something that most immigrants joining the military are but do not necessarily have to be), I am inclined to say that resident aliens should be allowed to join the military and hence become citizens by doing so. They have an equal stake in defending their homes and lives as anyone else. This is currently the case as I understood it from the articles. One is required to be a resident of the United States to join the military, but not a citizen. This does, however, raise some important questions upon deeper reflection. These stem from the fact that non-citizens are required to serve a certain amount of time in the military before being granted citizenship. This means that they have no stake in the decisions of the society that may send them to war. This is a question raised at the end of Moscoso's article that I feel is very important but that is not elaborated on. I find it to be a serious problem that we as a society may send people to war who have no political stake in the society. This seems not only profoundly undemocratic but dangerous as well. It is similar to the disconnect that our society has with the effects of war that we talked about last class, but seems to be taken to an even greater extreme. We should not be allowed to send others to fight our wars, even if we promise to grant them access to citizenship for doing so, because it creates a situation where we as a society are displacing the risk onto someone else. For this reason, I feel that non-citizens must be granted citizenship immediately upon joining the military, if only to solve this philosophical quandry. We must not send people to die for a society that does not count them among their own.

As for the question of allowing non-resident foreigners to join our military, I think the answer must be no. My reasons for this conclusion are similar to those above. It is wrong to allow people to fight for a society or to be sent to fight by a society that they do not have a stake in. And in this case, not only do they lack a political stake, but unlike the case with resident non-citizens, they lack a literal or physical stake as well. When we begin sending foreigners to do our killing and our dieing for us we have reached a point where we have truly become disconnected from the wars that we choose to fight. When we absolve ourselves of all of the risks, we forget the seriousness of the violence that we allow or potentially cause, and therefore lack a framework from which to judge the necessity of violence. We have too little to lose in making war upon others.

Notes on Mariscal and Astore: Why we Enlist

Mariscal and Astore both raise a number a points in their articles that no doubt play a significant role in the motivation of young men and women to join the military. There are two specific points though, one raised by each, that I found particularly pertinent. These deal with the issues that each author seems to take most seriously. In Mariscal's case, it is the motivating factor of altruism and how the military, and more importantly how political leaders, exploit good intentions to wage unjust and destructive wars. In Astore's case, it is the idea that many young American men have come to see American culture as overtly feminized and view the military as the best outlet for certain aspects of their masculinity. I would like to explore both of these points and see what you guys think about them.

To begin with Mariscal, I would like to note that I found his argument claiming that many young people join the military because they seek to make something of themselves and also to improve the world very compeling. Everyone wishes on some level to do these things, and for those who lack few other options, the military certainly might be one way to do them. Mariscal points out that many working class youth choose this rout simply because it seems the only one available to them. I see the logic in this argument, though I don't see why joining the military must necessarily be a last resort. Those in better economic situations who do have alternative options to affect the world for the better might choose the military nonetheless. If many assume that the military is a substandard option it seems that from Mariscal's point of view that this is because they realize that it is in fact a poor outlet for altruistic intentions. Yet, nonetheless, the poor choose it. This raises the question of why those in poor economic conditions are fooled and not others, and can be seen as being a somewhat elitist argument. I also feel that Mariscal over-emphasises the extent to which the good intentions of the young are unjustly and calously exploited by those seeking "imperialist fantasy". This is cartainly true to a degree. However, to suggest that a "military caste system" is taking shape in our country is, I feel, a little much. Many of those in the military think that the wars that they are engaged in now are in fact making the world a better place, and while I would personaly agree with Mariscal that they are not, it is wrong to suggest that those who join the military are somehow unaware of what it is they will get involved in. If they join to do good, then they think the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are good or they live in a hole.

I see the wisdom of Astore's point concerning the military as outlet for masculinity as well. All in all, perhaps it is an argument with less flaws than Mariscals. I personally know members of the military who certainly did have other options, such as college. They did not join because it was their only choice, and certainly countless others did not as well. While I would argue that our society does have other outlets for masculinity, such as sports and some jobs performing manual labor, it is perhaps true that these are less viable career options than the military. If one wishes to express their masculinity in their career, the military seems the best road. Astore also points out that many young men enlist because of the way society treats violence as taboo, likening it to sex during the victorian era. Because of this, the military is one of the few acceptable outlets for violence in our society. However, unlike sex, violent urges are something that must be seriously repressed, and so Astore concludes correctly that we must find another means of satisfying masculine urges. It would be foolish to misunderstand the need for young men to express their masculinity, and so Astore's argument should be taken very seriously.

A Response to Stahl's "Have You Played the War on Terror?"

Reading Stahl's article I couldn't help but consider my own history with respect to military themed video games. I have played my fair share, and although I never considered joining up as a result, I have to admit that video games have certainly played a role in shaping my conceptions of the military. Even for the great majority of us who view these games merely as another form of entertainment rather than as persuasive arguments favoring a potential career choice, it is difficult to deny that they do at the very least serve to shape our images of what the military does and why it does it. To think that the military itself puts so much energy into attempts to influence those images is a little bit frightening. It is almost Orwellian.

I accept Stahl's argument that military themed video games have had positive results on recruiting. The fact that the military has poured so much focus into them is evidence enough. However, I am interested in the ways such media influences those of us who do not join the armed forces as a result of playing. Do we become more inclined to accept military activity as something that is normal or even necessary when otherwise we might not? Is state violence or even simply the military itself seen in a more positive light by society as a whole because video games (not to mention other forms of media) convey these as perfectly reasonable and just means to solve our problems? Perhaps intangibles such as these are as important to the military and those favoring warfare as other more obvious and measurable benefits.