Kathy Barker is at war with the U.S. Army and the Seattle parks
department. Barker, a military “counter-recruiter” and mother of three
high-school students, has already been
part of a push to limit military recruiters’ presence on high-school
campuses. Now she’s set her sights on Seattle’s parks department.
Last April, Barker, who sits on the board of Washington Truth in
Recruiting, which provides students with alternatives to military
recruitment, fired off a letter to the City Council and the parks
department after army and navy soldiers showed up to a teen event at
the Delridge Community Center in Southwest Seattle in a shiny black
Hummer.
“[The parks department had] been advertising a teen-appreciation day
[with] basketball, swimming, a DJ, and a barbecue,” Barker says. She
says the woman who alerted her to the recruiters’ presence “pulled up
with her kids and saw two guys in army fatigues in a black Hummer. She
wanted them to go away and they wouldn’t.” Barker says she’s also heard
of recruiters showing up to events with climbing walls and video
games.
In September, attorneys for the parks department killed a proposal
that would have allowed recruiters at job fairs in parks facilities but
prohibited them from passing out materials or appearing at other events
in fatigues.
Dewey Potter, a spokeswoman for the department, insists that the
soldiers “weren’t recruiters,” although she admits “their presence may
have been to attract people” to the armed forces. Scott Lawrence, a
spokesman for the U.S. Army’s Seattle Recruiting Battalion, says that
“if [military officers] show up in a Humvee,” they’re “probably” from
the recruiting office, adding, “We go where there’s an opportunity to
show up.”
This is exactly what Barker is concerned about. “I think the
recruiting events are really predatory,” she says. “The City Council
passed a resolution against the Iraq War [in March 2007]. It seems
almost crazy and against policy to be recruiting in parks.”
So far, Barker says, only one City Council member, Richard McIver,
has responded directly to her April e-mail. In his response, McIver
wrote, “The military no doubt participated in part because it was an
opportunity to present the military in a positive light… to
eventually help with recruiting. The same could certainly be said of
the participation of the navy’s Blue Angels at Seafair. (Of course,
that participation is opposed by some for just this reason.)”
In another e-mail, an aide for Council Member Tom Rasmussen told
Barker the council was busy dealing with the annual budget and that
Rasmussen—who chairs the council’s parks committee—does not
think the recruitment issue should fall to the council.
Despite Barker’s hell-raising, the parks department says it doesn’t
have any plans to restrict the access of recruiters or even announce
which events they’ll be at. “It’s a First Amendment issue as far as
we’re concerned,” Potter says. 
Instead of trying to limit their recruitment practices, how about trying to require them to provide legal representation to people considering enlistment?
We hear tales of recruiters lying to people. Let’s make them legally responsible for their promises. You wouldn’t buy a house without having an attorney look over the contract. Why sell yourself to the military without counsel?
Perhaps some truth in advertising would be useful to her cause. She could arrange a mock-up of a Hummer wrecked by an IED. The flimsy protection would be a sobering reminder of how frail and un-valued life can be.
The problem here is that the recruiters show up in glamorous vehicles, telling kids how cool the “stuff” is, and how they will be taken care of on a free ride scholarship. The truth of the matter is, there is nothing glamorous about being in the armed services. The reality they will face is a far cry from what is being portrayed in order to lure them into signing a contract that makes them the “property” of the U.S. government, takes away all their rights, and any say-so in where they go, what they do, how they dress, how they behave (when at all possible), when they sleep, eat and use the toilet, and – as if that were not deterrent enough for intelligent people – whether you should kill people you’ve never met for a reason you may never know, or simply become the casualty of a political chess game that ends up a mystery to everyone but the neo-con elitists who tricked you into doing it with their smarmy tactics. Honestly! If Gays were so smart, they wouldn’t WANT to be in the military. It’s like asking to be sent to Germany in the 1940’s…
If we can’t ban guns from parks, it makes sense that we can’t ban free speech. But I still disagree!
I’m a Viet Nam Era Vet, and although I’m proud of my service, I wouldn’t do it again because I feel I was lied to regarding my “contract and M.O.S.”. All I can say is that the military made me grow up fast (I was 17, and signed with parental consent). Also, the military is still voluntary last time I checked. If by chance anyone that reads this is seriously wanting to join, READ THE FINE PRINT, AND HAVE YOUR RECRUITER SIGN A GUARANTY TO YOUR M.O.S. and place of duty! If by chance you’re totally against joining, and are considering claiming “Con… Objecter Status, start doing it at a young age, like first year in middle school, stay out of trouble, join religious volunteer groups, AND make it known to your recruter that you are and in BIG LETTERS USING A MARK-A-LOT write that you are across every military document. That way you can serve, but stay out of battle zones. The only thing I really have against the military/government is that after serving 3 years over seas, after being discharged, I had to wait 5 months before I could legally buy a damn beer!