Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
ninja

Child Soldiers?

Recommended Posts

Now that we're pretty far into the debate season, what are your thoughts on the child soldiers aff? Anyone here running it? Have you seen anyone running it in an innovative way, or perhaps in a more topical way? What are some of its major flaws?

 

Any input appreciated.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Now that we're pretty far into the debate season, what are your thoughts on the child soldiers aff? Anyone here running it? Have you seen anyone running it in an innovative way, or perhaps in a more topical way? What are some of its major flaws?

 

Any input appreciated.

 

a potential flaw is the omnibus bill

i haven't looked for CS stuff explicitly, but im pretty sure we just increased funding towards the problem...that destroys literally almost all of the US key warrants, if not the aff

The EU does the plan well, so you have to win Heg every round as aff

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hit it. We ran the argument that the US uses child soldiers right now. We didn't have any cards, but the army enlistment age is 18. You could probably tie that into a colonialism K or something saying that we go tell the africans it is wrong to do that, while supporting it at home.

 

http://www.army.com/enlist/guard-requirements.html

 

IT just lists the ages you have to be join the military, which is 17-42.

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/1815223.stm

 

States that child soldiers are any soldier in combat under the age of 18. You could look elsewhere for a place that says the US has yet to sign the ban on child soldiers thing from the UN.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

major flaw, solvency

 

expect if you run it to see actor CPs (EU, Ireland, a number of other countries, UN, or a number of treaties), T (though with the right solvency mechanism you can be pretty topical), and solvency every round

 

I wrote a chold soldiers aff that's off the beaten path, if you want to trade for it or get info about it PM me

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd have to agree with the above posters, international counterplans solve pretty well. I will say however, that Britain's enlistment age is about the same as ours (I think).

 

Here's a recent article on a UN resolution on child soldiers: http://www.worldpoliticsreview.com/article.aspx?id=1614

 

The best strategy that I could think up in 2 minutes before I posted this would be to have to be some sort of critical advantage centering on the US's not signing any international stuff on child soldiers, and how we'll be perceived as hypocritical until we make concrete strides to solving the problem. You'd probably also want to define child soldiers as lower than our enlistment age. I don't know if that is smart and/or coherent, but those are my thoughts.

 

I think that at this point, there are definitely more strategic cases.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

you can beat the international CPs, but this case doesn't link to a lot of Kritikal or policy args (not many DAs have a good link) if you prep the positions that you're likely to hit, you should be fine, and make sure to keep a good T block for Public Health Assistance handy for almost every 2AC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd have to agree. The actor counterplans can run against it well. Also have Ireland CP answers for that case because I've seen it ran against Child Solders and it was very well stated. Irelad can solve very well. Also, if you run it, depending on your plan, you might get It's or Public T ran on you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
We hit it at Harvard and went for an international CP w/US-specific case turns.

 

We won - the US key warrants for this case are substandard.

 

What exactly were the U.S. key warrants? I've been camp diving and have yet to find one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, it is a weak case. It is beatable, and everyone is right, there are no US is key warrants. Read some generic disad and concede the no links to prove the t.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I worked on this case at camp, here's the 1AC

 

The U.S federal government will provide all necessary financial and logistical support for the education, rehabilitation and reintegration for former child soldiers.

 

PANTS

 

 

Child soldiers are proliferating around the globe.

 

Kanagaratnam, 05 Pushpa Department of Psychosocial Sciences, University of Bergen, December 2005, “Ideological commitment and posttraumatic stress in former Tamil child.” Scandinavian Journal of Psychology. http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1467-9450.2005.00483.

 

Amnesty International (AI) estimates that worldwide over 300,000 children under the age of 18 are fighting in armed conflicts, with many under the age of 15 (Amnesty, 2002). This violates the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, a violation that has also been applicable to Sri Lanka. A recent report from AI, which covers the period of January to December 2001, confirms the recruitment of children into Tamil armed groups in Sri Lanka (Amnesty). Some of these children were as young as 10 (Machel, 2001).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Advantage 1

 

 

 

 

These children-turned killing machines view themselves and the world only through the lens of violence and like the machine, see it as their mission to assimilate everyone into the culture of violence. Without stopping these child soldiers, violence is unstoppable.

 

Singer, 05 P.W. Senior Fellow in Foreign Policy Studies at the Brookings Institution. 2005. Children at War. Pg. 72-73.

The exact types of indoctrination vary by group, but all take place at a time at which the child is at [their] his weakest emotionally and psychologically—disconnected from family, traumatized, and at a fundamental loss of control. The overall intent of the process is to create a sort of “moral disengagement” from the violence that children are supposed to carry out as soldiers. Typically, groups not only utilize threats of punishment against the children but also seek to diffuse any sense of responsibility among the children for further violence. These may include dehumanizing their victims, such as by creating a “moral split” that divides the world into an “us versus them” dichotomy. For example, young recruits in the LTTE are continually taught that those outside the cause are enemies and should be killed. They are also shown videos of dead women and children. This inures them to violence as well as creates a sense of righteousness in targeting outsiders, as the children are told that the group’s enemies did it. The effect is that many children often emerge from such programs with weakened senses of remorse and obsessions with violence. Another indoctrination tactic is to attempt to realign the child’s allegiances and worldview. This involves both traditional modes of propaganda and what may be termed “brainwashing.” Young members of the RUF, for example, were encouraged to call their leader Foday Sankoh, “Pappy.” Part of their indoctrination program was to declare that he was now their father. Sankoh was also compared in the program to Jesus and the Prophet Mohammed. Similarly, all LTTE recruits swear an oath of allegiance to the group’s leader, Velupillai Prabhakaran, every morning and evening, and he is similarly described as a father figure. Many groups also utilize the creation of alternative personas to neutralize the effect of the antisocial actions that they are attempting to indoctrinate. Across regions, child soldiers typically take on nicknames. Some of the names are simply juvenile, such as “Lieutenant Dirty Bathe” (because he never took a bath), while others are chilling such as “Blood Never Dry.” The renaming not only seeks to dissociate the children from culpability for the violence and crimes they commit, but also is intended to indicate a complete split with their prior self. Some units of child soldiers in Sierra Leone even took to calling themselves “cyborgs,” self-consciously denoting themselves as human killing machines with no feelings.

 

 

And-- The Psychological damage of war turns soldiers into a machine, creating a new type of militarism, making atrocities an inherent part of war.

 

Singer 02 (P.W Senior Fellow at the Brookings Institute and Author of the Book Children at war. Caution Children At War Parameters Winter 2001-2002)

The presence of children on the battlefield also adds to the chaos of war, making greater levels of atrocities more likely. This higher level of bloodshed, in turn, makes conflicts more intractable.While any number of groups use killings, rape, and torture as a part of their tactics to breed fear, using children as soldiers makes these violations an inherent part of the conflict. The intrinsic methods of recruitment and indoctrination of children entail massive violations of the laws of war. Atrocities play a central role in the methods used to turn children into soldiers. Likewise, the normative protections afforded wounded or prisoners of war are often ignored. Rebel groups with child soldiers typically kill their enemy's wounded or prisoners on the spot or bring them back to camp to kill as instructive victims. Civilians, in particular, bear the brunt of child soldier attacks. This strategy is in opposition to traditional guerilla doctrine of winning local support so as to blend into the environment.[36] The result is that when children are present in a conflict, experience has shown that they are among the most vicious combatants in the war; indeed, the younger child soldiers are, the more vicious they tend to be.[37] Children are also more likely to suffer greater losses. Many commanders deliberately exploit them in two primary methods: using children as shields or as cannon fodder. The first is the use of children to protect the lives of an organization's leaders and its better trained, and thus considered more valuable, adult soldiers. Children are most often the personnel used to explore suspected minefields, usually through simple trial and error. Children are used as direct shields at checkpoints or when ambushes or battles loom, while commanders remain safely hidden. Children are also commonly used in suicide missions or "human wave" attacks, where the tactic is designed to overpower a well-fortified opposition through sheer weight of numbers. Their value is that they provide extra targets for the enemy to deal with and expend ammunition on. Those who do not run in the direction of the gunfire are beaten or killed. Such attacks can be quite effective in overwhelming a force. In 1996, the LTTE used them to overrun the Multavi military complex in Sri Lanka, killing 1,173 out of 1,240 government soldiers. The casualty rates for child soldiers have been much higher than those for equivalent adult units. Since 1995, 60 percent of LTTE personnel killed in combat have been children aged ten to 16. Twenty percent were girls.[38] Child Soldiers and the Conflict Merry-Go-Round The dangers involved in introducing children into war do not stop at a conflict's t ermination, for each instance lays the groundwork for future fighting. In many ways, the child soldiers bear greater burdens after the conflict is over than their adult counterparts. Many have been forced to commit atrocities against their own families and communities, or have suffered physical disabilities or psychological scars, which are heightened by their youth. Most have special rehabilitation needs. Or, because they were removed from school at an early age, they may have no skills other than killing and being able to fieldstrip weapons. Perhaps, though, the most serious long-term consequence of the phenomenon of child soldiers is how it disrupts their psychological and moral development. The practice plunges them into a system where killing is sanctioned, inculcating a culture of impunity hard to reverse. The resulting tendency for more violence contributes to the difficulty peacekeeping forces experience when trying to integrate hostile groups into a united society.

Next, this has caused Africa become host to one of the greatest plagues of the modern era – an unending war fought on the backs of civilians, in particular children. In this bloodiest of conflicts, the world has seen the lives of millions ruined. All told, a child dies every three minutes.

 

Singer 05, P.W. Senior Fellow in Foreign Policy Studies at the Brookings Institution. 2005. Children at War. Pg. 4-5

 

The ancient distinction between combatants and civilians as targets of violence has arguably disappeared, or, even worse, swung the other way, creating a new pattern of warfare. Civilians have always suffered in war, but the difference is that in many present-day conflicts they are the primary target. Tactics of ethnic cleansing and genocide have replaced the strict codes of conduct and chivalry that guided such military orders as medieval European feudalism and ancient Japanese Bushido. Whereas wars were once fought almost exclusively between soldiers, in recent decades the worldwide percentage of victims from wars has become predominantly civilian. In World War I, the percentage of casualties that were civilian was under 10 percent of the total; in World War II, the percentage had risen to nearly 50 percent. The evolution continued through the next fifty years, to the point that now the overwhelming majority of those killed in conflicts are civilians instead of soldiers. For example, of all the persons killed in African conflicts in the late twentieth century, the overwhelming preponderance (92 percent) were civilians. Similar figures hold true for wars in the Balkans. Civilians once had no place on the battlefield; now the battlefield is almost incomplete without them. Michael Klare, a professor at Hampshire College who studies modern warfare, describes this change: The widespread slaughter of civilians in recent conflicts forces us to rethink what we mean by the concept of war. In the past, “war” meant a series of armed encounters between the armed forces of established states, usually for the purpose of territorial conquest or some other clearly defined strategic objective. But the conflicts of the current era bear little resemblance to this model: most take place within the borders of a single state and entail attacks by paramilitary and irregular forces on unarmed civilians for the purpose of pillage, rape, or ethnic slaughter—or some combination of all three. Because the most basic laws of war have increasingly been abandoned, conflicts have been characterized by horrific levels of violence. In particular, the once unimaginable targeting of children has become a widespread tactic of war. Examples run from the Serb snipers during the Sarajevo siege who deliberately shot at children walking between their parents, to Rwandan radio broadcasters before the 1994 genocide that reminded genocidal Hutu killers to be sure not to forget “the little ones.” The resulting tolls from this shift in attitudes are staggering. In the last decade of warfare, more than two million children have been killed, a rate of more than five hundred a day, or one every three minutes, for a full ten years.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And finally, This New militarism has morphed into the barbaritization of warfare, the root cause of terror, genocide, and mass violence.

 

Kassimeris 2006 George Senior Research Fellow in Conflict and Terrorism at Wolverhampton University, is the editor of The Barbarisation of Warfare,

Yet what happened in Srebrenica also took place, sometimes on a huge scale, during the Second World War and later in Kenya, Algeria, Vietnam, Cambodia, Rwanda, Sierra Leone, East Timor, Kosovo and Chechnya, bearing witness to humanity’s capacity to descend to acts of unspeakable barbarity if circumstances permit. What drives people to mistreat, humiliate and torment each other? What drives people into hatred, genocide, war, inhumanity and evil? Omar Bartov first used the phrase the barbaritization of warfare ‘describe the behaviour of German forces in his classic study, The Eastern Front, 1941–45: German Troops and the Barbarization of Warfare (1985). It might easily have been used the other way around had the focus instead been on the mass rape, destruction and looting meted out by the Red Army, first on the countries seen as having collaborated with Hitler’s Reich, and then on Germany itself in the closing months of the Second World War. The battles of Stalingrad and Berlin, landmark military events of that conflict, revealed the terrible ferocity of modern warfare and the brutalization of the individual under conditions of incessant killing and devastation. Excessive violence and barbarity are not phenomena exclusive to a ‘world war’ type of military conflict. Five years before Stalingrad, the Japanese were inflicting enormous, ingenious and unprovoked cruelties upon Chinese civilians and soldiers. And five years after the battle for Berlin, British battalions in Kenya were slicing off ears and flogging insurgents to death or setting them alight after pouring paraffin over them. Some British sub-units even kept scoreboards recording kills of ‘terrorists’. Those who did not make it on to the scoreboards were sent in their thousands to 1950s versions of Abu Ghraib detention camps where they experienced forced labour, systematic brutality, humiliation and torture. Is it possible to talk about warfare and avoid at the same time talking about viciousness and barbarity? Warfare and barbarity have been inseparable throughout history. From Sparta in the fifth century bc to Darfur in the twenty-first century, the use of indiscriminate terror, ethnic cleansing, genocide, and rape as familiar and effective tools of war-making has continued uninterrupted. Consider, for example, this description of violence in a civil war:When they had the prisoners in their hands [they] shut them up in a large building, and afterwards took them out in batches of twenty at a time and made them pass between two lines of [soldiers] drawn up to form a lane along which the prisoners went bound together, and were beaten and stabbed by those between whom they passed when anyone saw a personal enemy among them …[Later the captors] got up on to the top of the building, demolished the roof, and hurled down tiles … at the people below, who protected themselves as well as they could, though in fact most of them began to take their own lives…with cords taken from some beds that happened to be there, or with strips made out of their clothing…When it was day [the captors] piled up the bodies on to wagons and took them outside the city.This is not an extract from Primo Levi’s Auschwitz memoirs, or a report of a New York Times correspondent in Kosovo, but Thucydides in his description of the civil war on the Greek island of Corcyra in 427 BC. How people justify war does not necessarily account for why they wage it. Despite the uncertainty, the fear of death and the catastrophe of defeat, warfare has always attracted people. No matter how many times the nature of the argument about the use and value of warfare has changed over the centuries, war fascinates men more than it repels them. Three thousand years have not changed the human condition, the classicist Bernard Knox once commented: ‘we are still lovers of the will to violence.’ But the question that remains is this: can warfare be anything other than barbaric? There is little in recent history to prove that it can. The kind of dark barbarity that defined much of the world before the creation of the nation-state has to a large degree characterized the world that came after. Yet it was only towards the end of the twentieth century that people in the West began to understand a basic fact that Sri Lankans, Haitians, Liberians, Afghans, Chechnyans, Cambodians, Angolans and many others have long known all too well: that warfare prosecuted according to recognized laws of war has been the exception not the rule. For centuries the West has debated the morality of going to war and the manner in which it is fought, but international conventions are not sufficient in themselves to make warriors adhere to the rules. People have continued to commit war atrocities, refusing to distinguish between combatants and noncombatants, legitimate and illegitimate targets, civilized and barbarous treatment of prisoners and the wounded. In the light of this, it is not difficult to explain why the ratio of civilian to military casualties since the First World War has risen so dramatically that civilian casualties now constitute a shocking 90 per cent of those killed, mutilated, raped and uprooted, even when they presented no conceivable threat to the military adversaries. A large number of them are children. But, what can be done once the point has been reached when child soldiers carrying Kalashnikovs larger than themselves commit vicious attacks? The answer would be a great deal, if only we were able to explain both the complexity and psychology of such brutality. Yet explaining evil has turned out to be as difficult as preventing it

 

 

 

Advantage 2

 

The Catastrophe of Child Soldiering is the result of the structural violence that causes war. The lack of positive education indoctrinates them into a society of unchecked militarism, furthering the structural violence of the machine.

 

Wessells 2006 ( Micheal professor of psychology at Randolph-Macon College and senior child protection specialist for Christian Children's Fund Child Soldiers: From Violence to protection

Child soldiers and insecurity. Child soldiering violates the fundamental rights of children, exploits youth for political purposes, subjects them to slaughter and the ravages of war, and immerses them in a system that sanctions killing. And it also poses formidable security risks for others. A society that mobilizes and trains its young for war weaves violence into the fabric of life, increasing the likelihood that violence and war will be its future. Children who have been robbed of education and taught to kill often contribute to further militarization, lawlessness, and violence. The use of child soldiers also threatens fragile cease-fires and blocks reconciliation and peace. Not infrequently, conflict continues at the local level even after a cease-fire has been signed. Child soldiers are pawns in local conflicts because they provide a ready group for recruitment by warlords, profiteers, and groups that foment political instability. The problem is especially severe in developing countries, in which children constitute nearly half the population and in which children are often reared in a system that mixes war, poverty, violence, hunger, environmental degradation, and political instability.

Next,

 

In the Status quo peace is seen as the mere absence of war- this state of negative peace makes violence inevitable.

Sandy and Perkins ‘2 (Leo R. veteran of the U.S. Navy and an active member of Veterans for Peace, Inc., co-founder of Peace Studies at Plymouth State College and at Rivier College, Ray; teaches philosophy at Plymouth State College, The Nature of Peace and Its Implications for Peace Education”, Online journal of peace and conflict resolution, Issue 4.2, Spring 02, http://www.trinstitute.org/ojpcr/4_2natp.htm

 

 

In its most myopic and limited definition, peace is the mere absence of war. O'Kane (1992) sees this definition as a "vacuous, passive, simplistic, and unresponsive escape mechanism too often resorted to in the past - without success." This definition also commits a serious oversight: it ignores the residual feelings of mistrust and suspicion that the winners and losers of a war harbor toward each other. The subsequent suppression of mutual hostile feelings is not taken into account by those who define peace so simply. Their stance is that as long as people are not actively engaged in overt, mutual, violent, physical, and destructive activity, then peace exists. This, of course, is just another way of defining cold war. In other words, this simplistic definition is too broad because it allows us to attribute the term "peace" to states of affairs that are not truly peaceful (Copi and Cohen, p. 194). Unfortunately, this definition of peace appears to be the prevailing one in the world. It is the kind of peace maintained by a "peace through strength" posture that has led to the arms race, stockpiles of nuclear weapons, and the ultimate threat of mutually assured destruction. This version of peace was defended by the "peacekeeper" - a name that actually adorns some U.S. nuclear weapons deployed since 1986. (2)

Also, versions of this name appear on entrances to some military bases. Keeping "peace" in this manner evokes the theme in Peggy Lee's old song, "Is That All There is?" What this really comes down to is the idea of massive and indiscriminate killing for peace, which represents a morally dubious notion if not a fault of logic. The point here is that a "peace" that depends upon the threat and intention to kill vast numbers of human beings is hardly a stable or justifiable peace worthy of the name.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And,

 

Peace education is the central tenet in achieving positive peace. Redefining and teaching for peace is necessary to dismantle militarism.

 

Sandy and Perkins ‘2 (Leo R. veteran of the U.S. Navy and an active member of Veterans for Peace, Inc., co-founder of Peace Studies at Plymouth State College and at Rivier College, Ray; teaches philosophy at Plymouth State College, The Nature of Peace and Its Implications for Peace Education”, Online journal of peace and conflict resolution, Issue 4.2, Spring 02, http://www.trinstitute.org/ojpcr/4_2natp.htm

 

Finally, what do these insights about the definition of "peace" mean for peacemakers, and peace educators generally, in the 21st Century? We think they mean first that peacemakers must stress that the long-range goal of peace education should be the elimination of war as a method of resolving disputes. Reardon (1988) anticipated this when she said, "peace education must confront the need to abolish the institution of war" (p.24). To date, there has not been a widespread perceived need to do so. Establishing the need is a challenge that lies ahead. But, secondly, and at least equally important, our reflections about the nature of peace also suggest that the abolition of war will require more than the mere cessation of hostilities among peoples - not that that would be bad if we could get it. The problem is, as we saw earlier, that we probably cannot get it without a radical reconstruction of interpersonal and international relations along the lines suggested by our earlier examination. Paramount among these relations are the ideas of social justice and world law. The importance of these ideas in successfully pursuing the quest of abolishing war is, we think, an equally important implication for the future of peace education. Of course, the quest for peace and the abolition of war will be long and will require us to dig deeper into the very depths of the human and institutional psyches that lead "civilized" peoples to resort to force and, hopefully, to find and build the elusive "peace." This quest requires that we teach for peace and not just about peace.

 

Solvency:

 

The United States must implement the plan to challenge its own role in the the construction of the machine. Only U.S driven peace education and reintegration programs can break down the militarism around us.

 

McManimon 01 , Shannon American Friends Service Committee and Rachel Stohl, Cente for Defense Information October 2001 Use of Children as Soldiers http://www.fpif.org/briefs/vol6/v6n36childsoj.html

Congress should also examine war practices that increase the likelihood of children becoming soldiers. Children at risk should be identified and provided with peace education programs and cautions about child soldiering and its consequences. Efforts should be undertaken to mitigate the conflict-specific factors that put children at risk of becoming child soldiers.Additionally, U.S. aid should focus on universal access to basic education, food security, and primary health care, important factors in keeping children out of conflict. Countries should not be enticed to spend precious resources on weapons. Rather, they should be encouraged to invest in sustainable development programs that will protect the lives of children. The U.S. must take responsibility for the ways in which its own laws and practices foster the use of child soldiers and warfare against children. Congress should explore how U.S. training and weapons aid facilitate the use of child soldiers. Accordingly, Congress should monitor the entire process and investigate the end use of U.S. weapons shipments, including both weapons given as aid and arms that various government bodies have authorized for legal sale by U.S. manufacturers. (In FY 1999, the State Department’s end-use monitoring program conducted end-use checks on less than 1% of its weapons export licenses.) This oversight is particularly important in curbing the vast illegal weapons trafficking (especially of small arms), upon which many groups rely.

Several pieces of legislation can be used to facilitate these efforts. One is the 1997 Leahy Law, which stipulates withholding funds from governments whose security forces have been implicated in human rights abuses. Legislation can also ensure that military aid is conditioned on each country’s or group’s commitment not to use children in combat or recruit them into its armed forces. In addition, U.S. military training programs (for individuals, countries, or groups) should include guidelines for preventing the recruitment and use of children in armed conflict, including tips on checking the validity of identification documents and safeguards for recruiting volunteers.The rehabilitation of child soldiers and their reintegration into local communities are crucial steps in ensuring both lasting peace and stable communities. The decommissioning of arms is now seen as a crucial—though often missing—component in cease-fires and peace accords; the resettlement and reintegration of child soldiers and other combatants deserve similar status. Children’s basic needs must be addressed, along with education and family reunification. In one useful model, the Christian Children’s Fund (CCF) and the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF), with help from the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), have developed locale-specific programs to demobilize Angolan child soldiers and return them to their homes.To continue and expand this work, Congress should increase support (through the creation of a special fund) for the rehabilitation and reintegration of disarmed and demobilized child soldiers around the world. The U.S. should also be willing to grant asylum both to former child soldiers unable to return home and to youngsters fleeing wars or conscription.Washington refuses to admit that the U.S. has its own child soldiering problem. But 17-year-olds in the U.S. armed forces are only one aspect of a greater problem: a tolerance and even glorification of violence in U.S. culture that leads many youth to engage in different types of warfare in U.S. streets and schools. What must be recognized is that this tolerance of violence is ultimately connected to America’s failure to condemn unequivocally all use of children as soldiers. Thus, this culture of violence has ramifications not only in countless U.S. communities but also for hundreds of thousands of children—especially chichild soldiers—around the world. As public concern grows over youth violence, we must be sure that the efforts to end violence perpetrated by and against children extend to all the world’s children

Empirical evidence from African programs indicates that rehabilitation assistance is successful at reconstructing torn societies and ending the cycle of violence.

 

Hill and Langholtz 03 , Kari Researcher in the field of Child Soldiers in Africa. AND, Harvey , Professor at the College of William and Mary. 2003 “Rehabilitation Programs for African Child Soldiers.” Peace Review. http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~content=a713690073~db=all

 

The psychological and social effects of soldiering are not independent; rather, the two influence each other. Experts describe this interaction as “psychosocial.” A child cannot heal from the psychological effects of conflict if the child has no food or a job or a sense of stability, in much the same way that a child cannot be a contributing member of society if he or she suffers from soldiering psychological effects. The psychosocial effects of war on children are particularly dangerous because of the long-lasting consequences they can have for society, especially in promoting cycles of violence. Psychological factors, specifically PTSD, are a major cause of recurring cycles of war between ethnic and religious groups. That said, social and economic factors also perpetuate violence after a war ends. Elders in Sierra Leone, Uganda, and Angola have noted that youth with limited education and economic opportunities who view violence as normal and who have seen the power of a gun are at risk for continuing cycles of violence. Such cycles were seen in the postwar societies of both South Africa and Angola, where political violence was followed by criminal violence. By successfully rehabilitating traumatized and aggressive child soldiers, the perpetual cycle of violence can be broken. How can children who might be suffering from PTSD, who have developed an identity as a soldier, who have been socialized into a culture of violence, who have both committed and witnessed the atrocities of war, who have missed years of schooling, and who are without social support systems, be successfully rehabilitated and reintegrated intosociety?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The case is so not topical, because its not a disease. I saw one team try to turn it into mental disease, but you have to have a really open counter def to make it t.

 

And their is a solvency deficit, so run a prevention not treatment t, cause they are not disease or prevention. All they do is treat the existing soldiers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The case is so not topical, because its not a disease. I saw one team try to turn it into mental disease, but you have to have a really open counter def to make it t.

 

And their is a solvency deficit, so run a prevention not treatment t, cause they are not disease or prevention. All they do is treat the existing soldiers.

 

Disease/prevention isn't the god-given definition of PHA, just so you know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...