Complaints against Military Recruiters

[Adam's Apple]

What do you think of the charges being lobbied by the libs against military recruiters that they are trying to lure young people into joining the service by offering them college educations? Can someone explain to me what is possibly wrong with that? Enticements of some kind are offered for everything you do in life, and nothing is offered without some kind of cost attached. My father’s upward mobility, and probably all soldiers who served in WWII, came only as a result of the GI Bill, which helped them get a college education or vocational school training so they could enter the skilled trades. Definitely improved their lives and that of their progeny, so it seems to me this was a good deal for giving a few years of their lives to the military.
Who could possibly find fault with that?

 

[theHawk]

Blacks and other minorities had to fight for the right to even join the military, now according to them the minorities are being 'exploited' by the Man. They say our troops aren't getting enough benefits yet turn around and complain about them getting paid to go to college. I guess they'd rather see tax money pay for college for some jobless slackers than the people who serve this country. They are full of shit, and they want to see the military fail.

 

[The ClayTaurus]

Blacks and other minorities had to fight for the right to even join the military, now according to them the minorities are being 'exploited' by the Man. They say our troops aren't getting enough benefits yet turn around and complain about them getting paid to go to college. I guess they'd rather see tax money pay for college for some jobless slackers than the people who serve this country. They are full of shit, and they want to see the military fail.

I think some of the concern is the focus of military recruiters, where they look for enlistees and the like, and where they concentrate their recruiting efforts. I think some people see military recruiters at an inner city school multiple times a year, and then hear that many schools in the suburbs sometimes only get 1 visit a year, if that, and they see that as fishy. The mistake they make is assuming that it's racial; I think they're confused, as it's more of a socioeconomic things vs. a race thing.

I don't have any problem with offering education in exchange for military service.

 

[JOKER96BRAVO]

I joined for educational and patriotic reasons.
Only thing I will say about it is,
the more the military offers, the more people they get.
The old timers don't like this, I should know.
I had higher NCOs call me a shitbag because I didn't want to
stay in for 20 years, instead I wanted to use my college money.
The military needs to learn to adapt to this attitude if they continue
to offer so much to average Joe. It will be a tough transition.

 

[CSM]

I think some of the concern is the focus of military recruiters, where they look for enlistees and the like, and where they concentrate their recruiting efforts. I think some people see military recruiters at an inner city school multiple times a year, and then hear that many schools in the suburbs sometimes only get 1 visit a year, if that, and they see that as fishy. The mistake they make is assuming that it's racial; I think they're confused, as it's more of a socioeconomic things vs. a race thing.

I don't have any problem with offering education in exchange for military service.

actually, there was a thread on here not long ago showing that most of the recruits come from the middle class and not the lower income sector as some people would have us believe.

I dont know what the big deal is as many companies offer tuition reimbursement as a benefit so why shouldn't the military?

 

[The ClayTaurus]

actually, there was a thread on here not long ago showing that most of the recruits come from the middle class and not the lower income sector as some people would have us believe.

I dont know what the big deal is as many companies offer tuition reimbursement as a benefit so why shouldn't the military?

Well, the fact remains, I think, that the military doesn't waste much time recruiting at the upper-class schools. It's still a socioeconomic issue before it's a racial one. Be it upper vs middle and lower, or upper and middle vs. lower.

 

[Annie]

actually, there was a thread on here not long ago showing that most of the recruits come from the middle class and not the lower income sector as some people would have us believe.

I dont know what the big deal is as many companies offer tuition reimbursement as a benefit so why shouldn't the military?

Here's something pretty recent:

http://www.heritage.org/Research/NationalSecurity/cda05-08.cfm

Who Bears the Burden? Demographic Characteristics of U.S. Military Recruits Before and After 9/11
by Tim Kane, Ph.D.
Center for Data Analysis Report #05-08

November 7, 2005 |
Print PDF
| |

A few Members of Congress, motivated by American combat in the Middle East, have called for the reinstatement of a compulsory military draft. The case for coercing young citizens to join the military is supposedly based on social jus*tice—that all should serve—and seems to be but*tressed by reports of shortfalls in voluntary enlistment. In a New York Times op-ed on Decem*ber 31, 2002, Representative Charles Rangel (D– NY) claimed, “A disproportionate number of the poor and members of minority groups make up the enlisted ranks of the military, while most priv*ileged Americans are underrepresented or absent.”[1] This claim is frequently repeated by crit*ics of the war in Iraq.[2] Aside from the logical fal*lacy that a draft is less offensive to justice than a voluntary policy, Rangel’s assertions about the demographic makeup of the enlisted military are not grounded in fact.

Although all branches of the armed services have been able to meet recruiting goals in recent years, the Army’s difficulty in meeting its goal of 80,000 new soldiers in 2005 has been widely reported, and some view it as a symbol of the need to reinstate the draft. However, this shortfall should be placed in the proper context. The Army is pro*jected to fall just 7,000 (about 9 percent) short of its 2005 recruitment goal, which is less than 1 per*cent of the overall military of over 1 million person*nel. Furthermore, there is the unexpected rise in re-enlistment rates. In other words, the total force strength is about what it should be.

Since the draft was discontinued in 1973, all branches of the U.S. military have relied entirely on volunteers to fill their ranks. There are constant challenges in maintaining a balanced supply of recruits for force strength and composition, but three decades of experience confirms that the vol*untary policy works well, despite widespread skep*ticism in the early 1970s. The same cannot be said of a conscripted force, as evidenced by the backlash among troops and the public during the Vietnam conflict. Despite the Pentagon’s strong preference for an all-volunteer force, some politicians and many voters favor a draft.

A June 2005 Associate Press/Ipsos poll found that 27 percent of respondents supported “the reinstate*ment of the military draft in the United States.” Rein*statement of the draft was far more popular immediately following the September 11, 2001, ter*rorist attacks, when 76 percent of Americans sup*ported a renewed draft if “it becomes clear that more soldiers are needed in the war against terrorism.”[3]

Although Representative Rangel’s bill to reinstate the draft failed by a decisive vote of 402–2 in the House of Representatives in 2004, the issue will likely be considered again, especially if there are more terrorist attacks on the U.S.

Some motivations for the draft are entirely patriotic in the sense that they aim to protect America from aggressors. Others see the draft as an instrument of equality, as well as an instrument of pacifism.

Representative Rangel’s theory is that if all citi*zens faced equal prospects of dying in a conflict, support for that conflict would have to pass a higher standard. This theory assumes that the priv*ileged classes would be less willing to commit the nation to war if that conflict involved personal, familial, or class bloodshed. It also assumes that the existing volunteers are either ignorant or lack other options—that is, they are involuntary participants. One way to test this thesis is to explore the demo*graphic patterns of enlisted recruits before and after the initiation of the global war on terrorism on September 11, 2001.

This paper reports the results of summary research into the demographic composition of two groups of recruits: those who enlisted between October 1998 and September 1999 and those who enlisted between January 2003 and September 2003. These groups are referred to as the 1999 and 2003 recruit cohorts, respectively. Nationwide Census data for citizens ages 18–24 were used as a baseline for comparison. Comparisons of these three different groups highlight the differences not only between the general population and military volunteers, but also between recruits who volun*teered for the military before 9/11 and those who volunteered after 9/11.

Our analysis of the demographic composition of enlisted recruits vis-à-vis the general population considers the following characteristics:

* Household income,
* Level of education,
* Race/ethnicity, and
* Region/rural origin.

This paper also reviews other evidence that is at odds with the image, painted by some supporters of the draft, that the military exploits poor, ignorant, young Americans by using slick advertising that promises technical careers in the military to dupe them into trading their feeble opportunities in the private sector for a meager role as cannon fodder.

The caricature of conscription—a harsh reality of European militaries in the 18th and 19th centu*ries—lives on in the popular imagination, but it does not accurately represent the all-volunteer U.S. military. Indeed, the U.S. military’s qualitative superiority is what makes it the most efficient and lethal combat force in history. In economic terms, high-skill human capital among troops makes the military more productive overall. There may be legitimate equity concerns that outweigh national security, but they will undoubtedly come at a cost or trade-off in productivity.

However, our research shows that the volunteer force is already equitable. That is, it is highly likely that reinstating the draft would erode military effectiveness, increase American fatalities, destroy personal freedom, and even produce a less socio*economically “privileged” military in the process.

In summary, we found that, on average, 1999 recruits were more highly educated than the equiv*alent general population, more rural and less urban in origin, and of similar income status. We did not find evidence of minority racial exploitation (by race or by race-weighted ZIP code areas). We did find evidence of a “Southern military tradition” in that some states, notably in the South and West, provide a much higher proportion of enlisted troops by population.

The household income of recruits generally matches the income distribution of the American population. There are slightly higher proportions of recruits from the middle class and slightly lower proportions from low-income brackets. However, the proportion of high-income recruits rose to a disproportionately high level after the war on ter*rorism began, as did the proportion of highly edu*cated enlistees. All of the demographic evidence that we analyzed contradicts the pro-draft case....

 

[JOKER96BRAVO]

I think that all depends on the population and their quota,
Recruiters take the most willing, rich or not.

 

[Hobbit]

They offer stock options to anybody who works at my job for more than a year. Is that exploitation?

 

[no1tovote4]

They offer stock options to anybody who works at my job for more than a year. Is that exploitation?

Terrible exploitation! Giving you an option to buy something?!! What terrible people!

 

[Hagbard Celine]

If there is such a thing as "Libs" lodging complaints against military recruiters, it's probably more along the lines that recruiters give young recruits the false impression that they could join up and serve for a short, relatively painless period of time and then leave and have the military pay for their education or their retirement or any other number of benefits without telling them about the very real possibility that they could be shipped off to war and die before they even have a chance to partake in the benefits.

It's slightly underhanded because they dangle a carrot like a free education under their nose without telling them about the greater possibility of death. So some of these kids are young and dumb, their eyes are as big as saucer plates because they think they have found a way to get an education and a retirement and medical benefits for free and they're going to be Patriots, but then two months and a whirlwind later they're in Iraq sleeping in sand and getting shot at by savages and the military owns them for two or three more years.

Maybe the complaint is that recruiters are taking advantage of and gaining from kids' naivety.

 

[JOKER96BRAVO]

I find it hard to believe that a kid could join the military without SOMEONE
telling them the truth. I joined before the war and there was no doubt in my
head that I could (and did) go to war.

 

[theHawk]

If there is such a thing as "Libs" lodging complaints against military recruiters, it's probably more along the lines that recruiters give young recruits the false impression that they could join up and serve for a short, relatively painless period of time and then leave and have the military pay for their education or their retirement or any other number of benefits without telling them about the very real possibility that they could be shipped off to war and die before they even have a chance to partake in the benefits.

It's slightly underhanded because they dangle a carrot like a free education under their nose without telling them about the greater possibility of death. So some of these kids are young and dumb, their eyes are as big as saucer plates because they think they have found a way to get an education and a retirement and medical benefits for free and they're going to be Patriots, but then two months and a whirlwind later they're in Iraq sleeping in sand and getting shot at by savages and the military owns them for two or three more years.

Maybe the complaint is that recruiters are taking advantage of and gaining from kids' naivety.

I don't see how anyone could be THAT stupid. You have to sign a contract to join, all they have to do is READ it.

NO sympathy here

 

[Hobbit]

Who the hell goes out and volunteers for the job of killing people without realizing that some people might take offense at being killed and try to kill you right back? I haven't even met an 8-year old who thinks the Army is a safe place.

 

[Avatar4321]

I think some of the concern is the focus of military recruiters, where they look for enlistees and the like, and where they concentrate their recruiting efforts. I think some people see military recruiters at an inner city school multiple times a year, and then hear that many schools in the suburbs sometimes only get 1 visit a year, if that, and they see that as fishy. The mistake they make is assuming that it's racial; I think they're confused, as it's more of a socioeconomic things vs. a race thing.

I don't have any problem with offering education in exchange for military service.

Why is it even a socioeconomic thing? The fact is there are more people in the inner city than in the suburbs. Why wouldn't there be more military recruiters in the city then the burbs? it wouldnt make sense to send them all to the country where nobody is at.

 

[Avatar4321]

I saw an interesting discussion on the army recruiter situation.

One of the most interesting arguments I saw was that the libs are being incredibly stupid trying to ban army recruiters from campus. If the Army loses its ability to recruit willing soldiers, then it will force the draft back. That is something say they are opposed (although i must admit it is often confusing to see liberal Democrats as the ones drafting the bills to bring it back). If they prevent willing people from joining the military the military will have to force everyone to join.

Honestly this whole attempt to ban military recruiters from campus also completely undermines their "we support the troops but not the war" argument as well. Not that I really bought it to begin with.

 

[manu1959]

I saw an interesting discussion on the army recruiter situation.

One of the most interesting arguments I saw was that the libs are being incredibly stupid trying to ban army recruiters from campus. If the Army loses its ability to recruit willing soldiers, then it will force the draft back. That is something say they are opposed (although i must admit it is often confusing to see liberal Democrats as the ones drafting the bills to bring it back). If they prevent willing people from joining the military the military will have to force everyone to join.

Honestly this whole attempt to ban military recruiters from campus also completely undermines their "we support the troops but not the war" argument as well. Not that I really bought it to begin with.

san francsico banned them last week in their special election....boy will the be pissed when the draft comes back

 

[The ClayTaurus]

Why is it even a socioeconomic thing? The fact is there are more people in the inner city than in the suburbs. Why wouldn't there be more military recruiters in the city then the burbs? it wouldnt make sense to send them all to the country where nobody is at.

Not all suburbs. Detroit, for example, has like 15 times as many people in the suburbs than they do in the city. Livonia alone has a larger population than Detroit does.

 

[Hobbit]

I saw an interesting discussion on the army recruiter situation.

One of the most interesting arguments I saw was that the libs are being incredibly stupid trying to ban army recruiters from campus. If the Army loses its ability to recruit willing soldiers, then it will force the draft back. That is something say they are opposed (although i must admit it is often confusing to see liberal Democrats as the ones drafting the bills to bring it back). If they prevent willing people from joining the military the military will have to force everyone to join.

Honestly this whole attempt to ban military recruiters from campus also completely undermines their "we support the troops but not the war" argument as well. Not that I really bought it to begin with.

Is it really that surprising. I spotted this tactic before I became politically aware. The Democrats propose the bill and claim its purpose is to even out the socioeconomic demographics of the military. In layman's terms, there aren't enough rich people in the Army, and since they aren't volunteering, we gotta force them. This, however, isn't the goal. The bill always includes college students and women in the draft in order to make sure it has stiff opposition and will never pass and to ensure that when it goes public, everyone will fear a draft so much that they will drastically oppose the war.

 

[Annie]

Is it really that surprising. I spotted this tactic before I became politically aware. The Democrats propose the bill and claim its purpose is to even out the socioeconomic demographics of the military. In layman's terms, there aren't enough rich people in the Army, and since they aren't volunteering, we gotta force them. This, however, isn't the goal. The bill always includes college students and women in the draft in order to make sure it has stiff opposition and will never pass and to ensure that when it goes public, everyone will fear a draft so much that they will drastically oppose the war.

When my daughter applied in 2000, before the election, she scored pretty high-for her. The Army said that she was good for specialist something for getting stuff ordered/organized. My dad, who was dead set against her enlistment, said if she was going into army, this was the best entry level assignment, especially if he taught her how to really play poker. (sigh, I'm out of the loop.) My worries were Clintonian cuts and her being such a girly, girl. She did get out of.

Now my youngest son took the tests for Marines, while in high school. He'd already been offered scholarship at VMI. The recruiter told him to wait and get his degree and go for commission. He'd scored very high and after 9/11. I guess in spite of shortfall, there are recruiters that take into account the future.