Military wants to include Peace Corps in enlistment numbers?

[babylonsister]

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2005/08/03/MNGCGE1TLO1.DTL

Washington -- The U.S. military, struggling to fill its voluntary ranks, is offering to allow recruits to meet part of their military obligations by serving in the Peace Corps, which has resisted any ties to the Defense Department or U.S. intelligence agencies since its founding in 1961.

The recruitment program has sparked debate and rising opposition among current and former Peace Corps officials. Some welcome it as a way to expand the cadre of idealistic volunteers created by former President John Kennedy. But many say it could lead to suspicions abroad that the Peace Corps, which has 7,733 workers in 73 countries, is working together with the U.S. armed forces.
more...

Edit to add http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/08/03/1420205
Peace Corps volunteers are raising alarm bells about legislation that allows the U.S. military to recruit young people by holding out the option of a two-year stint in the Peace Corps to fulfill service obligations. We speak with the National Peace Corps Association, a Washington Post reporter, the U.S. Army Recruiting Command, and a Peace Corps parent.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As the U.S. military scrambles to meet recruiting goals, controversy is emerging over a new initiative that allows members of the armed forces to join the Peace Corps to fulfill part of their eight year service obligation. On Tuesday, the Washington Post published an article on the Peace Corps option for military recruits. The partnership was established through legislation backed by Senators John McCain and Evan Bayh and passed two years ago by Congress. It's only now, though, that the miliatry is heavily promoting the Peace Corps option to recruits through its National Call to Service program. And 2007 will see the first batch of recruits who will be eligible to participate in the Peace Corps after fulfilling a 15-month stint in the military. The program is part of the Individual Ready Reserve, which consists of active duty troops and trained military personnel who can be called up to active duty to fill vacancies.
more...

[tk2kewl]

1. NO WAY

it will give the impression that the Peace Corps is a para-military organization or spy organization and it will open the door to make it exactly that.

[babylonsister]

2. Tell Amy Goodman that; she just interviewed a few people

who fear it might happen though others are fighting it. The head of enlistments thinks it's a grand idea!

[KharmaTrain]

5. How Better Way To Destroy It

The GOOP have never like the Peace Corp. (just the name must make chickenhawks wince) and how better to ruin it than by rumor and infiltration.

As usual, pervert the original intention and just let the infighting do the rest.

[tk2kewl]

9. good point

standard MO for these fucks

[Stirk]

3. Do they just want to inflate their recruitment numbers with this?

So they can say they've met their goal or something? I can't imagine there's much overlap in the Peace Corps crowd and the pro-Iraq occupation crowd. I mean- these wouldn't be people signing up because they lack economic opportunities.

[babylonsister]

7. Original post edited to include Dem. Now link;

there is pending legislation to get this done. And yes, Stirk, I'm sure this is to help their crappy enlistment numbers.

[Coventina]

4. Ok, it's official, the military is insane.

:wtf:

:crazy:

:banghead:

[One_Life_To_Give]

6. The Military want this because?

{Give us minimal (2 yrs in Iraq) service and you can spend your entire enlistment in the peace corp. (Unless we decide we need you in Iraq)

And the Peace Corp get what out of this?

[greyl]

8. The Peace Corps is engaged in exploiting natural resources

for human advantage, so it makes a bit of sense. (edit: by "makes sense", I don't mean it's a good idea. I only mean that the Peace Corps shares some common goals with the current US military which makes them a target of exploitation by the military. /edit)


I'm totally against it, however the somewhat hidden functions of the Peace Corps contradict their name.

"The point of my comments is not to express "dissatisfaction" with the Peace Corps. I've merely tried to point out that it serves as a sort of peaceful and even well-intentioned advance army of invasion. It brings aid intended to enhance "development," to bring its recipients up to our standards--to bring them blessings that will make them just a little bit more like us. Naturally this involves helping them see things the way we do. No one specifically crafted this "underlying agenda." It is rather the underlying agenda of our culture itself: there is one right way for people to live (our way) and everyone must be made (or helped) to live the way we do. This naturally (and by happy accident) serves to provide us with expanded markets for the products we make. The Peace Corps wasn't specifically created to pave the way for the arrival of McDonalds and Coca-Cola, but it does serve this purpose nonetheless.
http://www.ishmael.org/Interaction/QandA/Detail.CFM?Record=607

[KarenInMA]

10. This will put the Peace Corp at risk.

They are able to go into dicy areas (like the Red Cross) because they are non-millitary.