# Army Recruitment In the Wake of Tragedy? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 24, 2001, 4:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/army-recruitment-in-the-wake-of-tragedy/83500 "2001-09-24T16:25:16Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 2\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![VarlosZ](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/d78d45/32.png) [@VarlosZ](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/VarlosZ)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2001, 3:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/army-recruitment-in-the-wake-of-tragedy/83500/21 "2001-09-26T15:05:11Z")
Never mind then. If you are unable or unwilling to recognize, for example, that I’ve questioned only your knowledge about the recruitment process _since 9/11_, then there is simply no point in continuing. I will point out one thing, however. > [@](#): > > First: your OP begins with assumption. The OP begins with and is based upon an observation. I point out that the observation is unverified, and ask anyone who can refute the observation to do so (I would note that you have not done so). This is a far cry from “assuming” that the military is upping its recruitment efforts. Since assuming that I’m wrong is counter-productive, and deferring debate until we have relative certainty regarding current recruitment practices serves no great purpose, and since I wanted a transitional phrase to start the paragraph, I stated explicitly what is implicit in nearly every OP: “Assuming for the moment that [my premises are] right. . .” In other words, the purpose of the thread is a discussion of the consequences and implications of the premises. Unless you are actually going to refute said premises, complaining about them does very little good. Peace. **WAE** : > [@](#): > > ## 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? > > Angry I can understand, but I didn’t see anyone mention anything about “grief-stricken”. Who do you mean by “anyone”? I heard just about every newscast dealing with schools refer to “grief-stricken” students. Of course, what exactly being grief-stricken entails is really a personal judgement about the nature of the words, not a matter of objective fact. You might just as well say “sad” and mean what I mean when I say “grief-stricken.” It’s not very important. ---
**Author:** ![Eldramar](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/ecae2f/32.png) [@Eldramar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Eldramar)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2001, 4:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/army-recruitment-in-the-wake-of-tragedy/83500/22 "2001-09-26T16:22:46Z")
As a member of the Washington Army National Guard band who has a mission to primarily support recruiting in the state, and working as a Veterans affairs representative to a local community college, I deal with recruiters from all branches on a regular basis. Since the September 11 incident I have seen no incidence of increased trolling at my school. On the contrary I have yet to see a recruiter on campus where before I would see three or four a week. There has also been no orders from state command pushing up recruiting and retention goals so far. This leads me to believe that the military, and specifically the Army has not Pushed up enlistment and retention goals. Does this mean there are not agressive recruiters? No but please keep in mind that those recruiters were just as effected by September 11 as everyone else. I can not imagine one thinking “what a great recruiting event.” [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/army-recruitment-in-the-wake-of-tragedy/83500.md?page=1)