Be all that you can be, really

Ever since the invasion of Afghanistan by U.S. forces I have seen articles about the volunteer military and people's motivations for joining. This editorial piece on Alternet by William J. Astore, a retired Lieutenant Colonel in the Air Force is representative. He writes about the desire of young people to test themselves, prove themselves, live up to their own sense of patriotism, and make their own way in the world. People are looking for something to belong to, and something to do that they can be proud of. For some, admittedly, the military is an economic default, especially in areas with severe unemployment. This is all common sense, but Astore writes what to me is a very inspiring paragraph.

The challenge for progressives is to recognize this and then to work to create viable alternatives to military service in which masculinity and patriotism can be demonstrated in non-lethal settings. An example is my father's service as a forest laborer and firefighter in the Civilian Conservation Corps in Oregon from 1935 to 1937. There could be many opportunities for our young men to assert their masculinity in non-military and nonviolent settings -- fixing our nation's roads and bridges, rebuilding our inner cities, rescuing places torn apart by disaster, natural or otherwise, like New Orleans; and from these, too, funded educational openings and future career possibilities could arise.

This makes eminent sense to me, not just as an opportunity for young people (not just men) to find themselves, but as a tool of enlightened foreign policy. It brings to mind an idea I have had rolling around in the back of my head for a while. I think this alternative to military service should be formalized and funded as a branch of the federal government.

My working title for it is the United States Humanitarian Relief Service. It would be a hybrid of the Peace Corps, elite military forces such as the Navy Seals, and the Red Cross. It would be an unarmed group of rigorously trained recruits, organized on military principles, and provided with the same kind of logistical capabilities as the U.S. military. The mission and training, however, would be entirely focused on providing humanitarian relief services to people all over the world.

There always seems to be a sudden humanitarian crisis happening somewhere in the world. There are floods, fires, mudslides, hurricanes, tsunamis, and earthquakes. What if we had a well equipped, mobile force ready, not to attack, but to rescue? What if we could place search and rescue teams, portable hospitals, food supplies, temporary shelters, water purification units, and a corps of disaster relief specialists anywhere on the planet within 48 hours? It would be a huge step in alleviating human suffering and would have the side effect of improving our national standing in the world. It would give our young (and maybe not as young) people the opportunity to learn useful skills, learn about themselves, and serve their country by serving others.

It would not be for everybody. When I say elite, I mean elite. These people would be thrust into the most chaotic and dangerous situations, and would need to be in top physical and mental shape. They would need to be trained in core survival skills, foreign languages and operational specialties. They would have to work as disciplined teams, supported buy the same kind of logistics and coordinated by the same kind of command structures that we now apply to invading Middle Eastern countries. Say what you like about the U.S. military in terms of mission, but they tend to get that mission done. Turn that mission into saving lives and we could accomplish wonders.

Another thing to consider is the opportunity for developing bilateral relationships with otherwise suspicious or hostile countries. In the event of a natural disaster we couldn't waste time negotiating the terms of the H.R.S. response with the country in question. We would have to set up individual disaster response plans with each country beforehand so that the mission could be launched the instant the request came in. That would automatically put us in an friendly mode on at least one front with every participating country. We would be viewed as a potential rescuer instead of a potential attacker.

Of course, the H.R.S. would have domestic applications as well, as a sort of souped up National Guard. The National Guard itself, given its normal pre-Iraq role as the local disaster relief force, could coordinate with the H.R.S., calling upon it when needed. There could be much useful cooperation in terms of training, information gathering, and personnel exchange.

As our atmosphere heats up, both climatically and politically, storms of all sorts will be breaking out with greater frequency. The desire among young people for challenge, camaraderie, and adventure will always be there. The Humanitarian Relief Service would be a smart response to all these needs. We should redirect some of the money we now spend on having the world's largest military to having the world's largest rescue team.

Comments

[Tim]

I agree! I'm sure those blackwater guys (and girls) have a hard time turning down $150k a year, no matter what the mission is. Even $20k a year for the regular millitary is a step up from no job and no prospects at home.

My idea has always been to bring those troops home and train them as an army of local organic gardeners and farmers. They would sell the food for a discount price in the area that they grow it. Where's the machoness in gardening you ask? Hook a couple guys up to a yoke and a plow and have them till a few acres. I can see the commercials now.

I think Dynacorp, Lockheed Martin, and Halliburton might "feel" left out. Too bad helping people isn't as profitable and killing them.

[Brian]

You might be surprised to find that some of todays military strategists will agree with you. Thomas P. Barnett, one of those strategists, proposes the need for a non-warfighting force to rebuild infrastructure and establish peaceful relations (police) in invaded coutries. He calls it the "System Administrators", and while apt I personally think it needs a sexier name. Clearly such a force would be invaluable in situations where we were providing aid, whether it be in a foreign country (conquered or not) or to our own citizens such as in the aftermath of Katrina.

One thing is clear, in the current state of the world, we need to wage peace just as well as we wage war.

Check out his TED talk, you may find it enlightening. http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/view/id/33

We can only hope such an effective force is fielded (and wielded) in our lifetime.