I’ve noticed an increase in the frequency of ads for the military – both on television and in sticker/poster form – since the WTC and Pentagon attacks of the 11th. This could, of course, just be a matter of perception (i.e. I’m just noticing the same ads more than I normally would). If anyone has knowledge that this is so, feel free to correct me.
Assuming for the moment that I’m right, however, I have some concerns about this. Is the military callously taking advantage of people’s emotions to boost enlistment, particularly among those who would not normally be inclined to enlist and who, given enough time to heal, would again decide not to? Are the advertisements simply made necessary by the expected strain on our military, and not directly related to the WTC attacks? Some combination of the two, perhaps? Does the military have some responsibility to make sure that enlistees aren’t making an irrational decision, or a decision that they will likely regret? Does any of this matter?
I personally think it’s a little shady, but am curious as to what others believe and why.
I haven’t noticed an increase. I do remember that during the Gulf Way, recruitment went up. I think they called it the John Wayne Syndrome or some such.
I’ve no special knowledge on recruiting advertisement spots, but they seem to be running the same amount around here. I talked to one recruiter who did mention a large increase in ‘walk-ins’ or whatever they are called.
But though they might be willing, there are certain age and education requirements. A Vietnam veteran who wants to kick a little tally-ban ass isn’t going to be allowed to enlist, nor is someone who’s got that heroin trafficking court date next month.
Thankfully, it appears there is no necessity of a general conscription or ‘draft’ at this point, though anything is possible. It might be a good way to illustrate in a demonstrative way to the citizens of the U.S. that things aren’t ‘going back to normal’ anytime soon, though. There has been a serious decline in the number of qualified personnel entering and staying in the armed services, which tends to exacerbate the problem over time as well. That was then, this is now, however.
All four branches of the U.S. military have traditionally resorted to all sorts of slimy tricks to try and lure new recruits into their ranks. Remember how Goldie Hawn got talked into joining the army in the movie Private Benjamin? Any recruitment drive going on right now will use any dirty underhanded trick it can get its hands on to meet its enlistment quota, including playing upon the current groundswell of anti-terrorist patriotism.
As one who had joined the United States Army on two separate occasions, I can say without benefit of watching any hollywood movies that joining the military these days is much different than Goldie Hawn might have had it.
From what I have experienced, there are a number of citizens who cannot be accepted even if the Army would allow it-- single parents, lack of a high school diploma, law violations, overweight, etc., the military isn’t for everyone, but somebody has to do it. My time wasn’t all sweetness and light, but it did me a world of good.
(A) If anything, I had noticed fewer recruiting ads. But of course, that may just be a function of most networks having gone 24-hr news for several days.
(B) The main newspapers and TV news stations here in San Juan interviewed recruiters from various services, and they all reported a marked spike in the amount of queries (and proportionally greater in the case fo the Marines, but then again their normal level is not that big, so it’s easy to get a high % increase), but only minimal, if any, effect in actual enlistments. Then again, the San Juan recruiting offices never have any trouble making (and in the case of the Army, exceeding) quota so they haven’t needed to do much.
A litle while after Private Benjamin came out, either 60 Minutes or 20/20 did a little investigative reporting of their own, and claimed that some of the tricks the recruiter(s) used in that movie had a basis in fact.
The recruiters, for example, showed pictures of the quarters the recruits could allegedly live in, while neglecting to tell them that the houses in the pictures would only be available to them if they became officers. When asked, “What if I change my mind and don’t want to be in the army?”, a real-life recruiter replied, “There are ways of getting you out,” while neglecting to mention that you practically have to be either insane or a conviced criminal if you want to get out of the army before your enlistment term is over.
I think we can safely rule out Logic, Debate, and Civics as subjects you teach.
And I take it that you are personally responsible for setting the visiting schedule for the recruiters? After all, it must’ve been right at the top of the recruiter’s Day-Planner[sup]tm[/sup] “wait for hijacked planes to explode and then go recruit.” ::rollseyes times 1,000,000.::
More likely, the recruiter was fulfilling a scheduled obligation.
Guidance office is, presumably, a required stop for the recruiter. After all, he’s is there to give information about a viable career option for the students to pursue after graduation.
The cafeteria is off-limits to the recruiter? How quaint. ::rollseyes times 1,000,000.::
Let’s see: YOU are the one who jumped to a conclusion. YOU are the one who reacted to an innocent action based on YOUR prejudices and yet it is YOU who call the innocent person a vulture.
Truly fascinating. I certainly hope you find another career and soon. It saddens me that there are impressionable youth subjected to your obvious bias.
I’ve seen some pretty questionable recruitment practices (as an ex-student of a poverty draft high school). I don’t know too much about the situation right now, but I know the precedence is pretty bad.
Not quite true. There are numerous honest ways out if you contact a G.I. Rights organization. For example, I was honorably discharged from the Navy as a conscientious objector. It’s all about taking the time to check out the regs and having experienced legal representation, as well as enlisting the help of your congressman if you command mishandles even the slightest detail.
Jeez, Monty. You run out of Fruit Loops this morning? Chill.
Stop mucking up my thread with uncalled-for insults, please.
What makes you think that that’s more likely (seeing as you know absolutely nothing about FQ’s school or the recruiter’s regular recruiting practices at said school)? Even if it was a scheduled stop, you don’t think it’s in extremely poor taste to ask angry, grief-stricken children to pick up a gun? You don’t think he could have waited a week to do this?
I think it’s quite clear that FQ wasn’t complaining about where in the school the recruiter was, but rather that he was in the school. Sometimes people wish to relay more detail than is absolutely necessary so as to provide a better idea of what was going on. I think you should have examined FQ’s post more carefully before responding.
The innocence of the recruiter is precisely what is in question (i.e. the ethics of military recruiting after 9/11). You may disagree with her, but FQ has every right to make a personal judgement.
You surely know considerably less about this particular incident than FQ, yet you accuse her of jumping to conclusions.
Even if FQ were guilty of jumping to unfounded conclusions (and I have no reason to believe that she is), you have no idea what her “prejudices” may or may not be.
Given the above, it is surprising that you would make a joke about someone else’s capacity for logic.
Actually, that was definitely called for. But, I noticed you say nothing about FQ’s uncalled for rant.
BTW, thanks to Weird Al for pointing out it was uncalled for.
Let’s see: you appear to be saying that the recruiter MAY HAVE been waiting for the planes to crash before recruiting? Please.
The reason I say the recruiter most likely was fulfilling a scheduled operation is because he is a Soldier and has to follow the command’s schedule.
I wonder if the children are “grief stricken” or if they are reacting the way many other people are to the tragedy. To be sure, many people (including me) feel grief for the victims but are still able to carry on with their lives without being grief-stricken. Part of the recruiter’s life is to do his military duty. Since the command has a schedule, following that presumably falls into that duty.
Depends on the size of the recruiting district and the number of recruiters available in said district, when and how often the school administration makes the school available to the recruiters, when the “career days” are, etc. Plenty of variables there.
Actually, it’s quite obvious that FQ was complaining about the recruiter being in the cafeteria and complaining about the recruiter being in the guidance office.
I examined FQ’s post and responded appropriately. As did Weird Al.
The innocence of the recruiter is not in question. FQ complained about the recruiter being in the cafeteria and the guidance office and characterized the recruiter as “trolling” and a “vulture.” All based on the mere fact that the recruiter was in the school.
But, apparently, in your eyes, Weird Al and I don’t have the right to make a judgment of the uncalled for bad characterization of the recruiter? Thanks for clearing that up.
What “incident”? That a recruiter is in the school. In case you didn’t know, that’s a pretty common practice in the United States. Recruiters visit schools, quite often at the invitation or the school administration.
You are mistaken. The use of the terms “trolling” and “vulture” give a pretty good indication of at least one of those prejudices.
It was not a joke and was dead on point.
Again, you are mistaken. The use of the terms “trolling” and “vulture” give a pretty good indication of that bias.
Again, you are mistaken.
p.s. Before you jump to the conclusion that I don’t know anything about the US military, I’m a PN1, USN (Ret).
Monty, I take issue with just about every facet of your post, but there are two that stick out. If we cannot reach an immediate resolution on these points, then further discussion is surely fruitless.
This is a blatantly dishonest reading of my post. Surely you realize that the two “possibilities” you mention (either the recruiter was waiting for the attack or it was a regularly scheduled appearance) are not the only two possibilities. I personally believe that the recruiter decided – for whatever reason – that he should make an appearance at the school because of the attacks. This clearly does not require the recruiter to have been “waiting,” in any sense of the word, for the attacks.
Attacking your opponent is easy when you make up his words and arguments out of thin air. Nowhere did I suggest that you no nothing about the military. Perhaps it will be clearer if I reconstruct the dialogue:
even sven: “I’ve seen some pretty questionable recruitment practices (as an ex-student of a poverty draft high school). I don’t know too much about the situation right now [at recruitment centers], but I know the precedence is pretty bad.”
Monty: “In other words, es, you just flat out don’t know.”
Varlos: “Neither do you.”
Monty: [You’re wrong, I know lots about the U.S. military.]
Do you see why that doesn’t work? Unless you’ve been down to your local recruitment center since the 11th to see how they’re handling things, you really have no better idea of what’s going on than does es. (And, if you have been down there, why haven’t you mentioned it yet?)
You may take issue with it but you have yet to validly refute any of it.
I certainly do realize that there are more than two possible scenarios. However, your response to my post was a direct question to the effect of “why do you think that it’s more likely the dude was just doing his job instead of the other scenario you provided?” You may notice, upon re-reading my post that the scenario I provided–and to which you asked why the doing his job scenario wasn’t more likely–was my admittedly sarcastic remark.
But I don’t think I can be responsible for all the stuff you made up out of thin air.
And you base this upon exactly what evidence? Your personal belief? And that belief is founded on what?
Then you admit that your presupposition in the OP was way out in left field? Good, then ask the mods to move this from GD to IMHO, or better yet the Pit where, IMHO, it belongs to begin with.
First: your OP begins with assumption. Bad plan. Very bad.
Second: I did not make up arguments out of thin air. Giving the nature of the job I did in the military, I supported recruiters and therefore know something about their practices. Admittedly, the recruiters with whom I dealt were professional and not the scum of the Earth that FQ seems to think the one she ranted about is. The fact remains though that your OP is based on assumption and presupposition.
Just saving you a step or two. Not only do I know a thing or two about the military, I also know a thing or two about the recruiting end of it.
Perhaps you could be honest yourself in this matter?
Let’s see: the recruiter is in the military and you say I know nothing about recruitment but then you say that you’re not saying that? I think, and this is IMHO, that you certainly put your OP in the wrong forum, to say the least.
Since for a good part of my military career, I supported recruiters, I do believe it’s a safer bet to go with what I know to be the required practices of the recruiters than with FQ’s unsupported character assassination of a Non-Commissioned Officer.