Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

War on Iraq

Top Military Recruitment Lies

By Aimee Allison and David Solnit, Seven Stories Press. Posted September 20, 2007.


The new book Army of None reveals the scummy truth about the military recruitment complex.
09202007story2
09202007story2
Advertisement

Editor's Note: The following is excerpted from Army of None: Strategies to Counter Military Recruitment, End War and Build a Better World published by Seven Stories Press, August 2007. Reprinted here by permission of publisher. Copyright © 2007 Aimee Allison and David Solnit

Top military recruitment facts

1. Recruiters lie. According the New York Times, nearly one of five United States Army recruiters was under investigation in 2004 for offenses varying from "threats and coercion to false promises that applicants would not be sent to Iraq." One veteran recruiter told a reporter for the Albany Times Union, "I've been recruiting for years, and I don't know one recruiter who wasn't dishonest about it. I did it myself."

2. The military contract guarantees nothing. The Department of Defense's own enlistment/re-enlistment document states, "Laws and regulations that govern military personnel may change without notice to me. Such changes may affect my status, pay allowances, benefits and responsibilities as a member of the Armed Forces REGARDLESS of the provisions of this enlistment/re-enlistment document" (DD Form4/1, 1998, Sec.9.5b).

3. Advertised signing bonuses are bogus. Bonuses are often thought of as gifts, but they're not. They're like loans: If an enlistee leaves the military before his or her agreed term of service, he or she will be forced to repay the bonus. Besides, Army data shows that the top bonus of $20,000 was given to only 6 percent of the 47,7272 enlistees who signed up for active duty.

4. The military won't make you financially secure. Military members are no strangers to financial strain: 48 percent report having financial difficulty, approximately 33 percent of homeless men in the United States are veterans, and nearly 200,000 veterans are homeless on any given night.

5. Money for college ($71,424 in the bank?). If you expect the military to pay for college, better read the fine print. Among recruits who sign up for the Montgomery GI Bill, 65 percent receive no money for college, and only 15 percent ever receive a college degree. The maximum Montgomery GI Bill benefit is $37,224, and even this 37K is hard to get: To join, you must first put in a nonrefundable $1,200 deposit that has to be paid to the military during the first year of service. To receive the $37K, you must also be an active-duty member who has completed at least a three-year service agreement and is attending a four-year college full time. Benefits are significantly lower if you are going to school part-time or attending a two-year college. If you receive a less than honorable discharge (as one in four do), leave the military early (as one in three do), or later decide not to go to college, the military will keep your deposit and give you nothing. Note: The $71,424 advertised by the Army and $86,000 by the Navy includes benefits from the Amy or Navy College Fund, respectively. Fewer than 10 percent of all recruits earn money from the Army College Fund, which is specifically designed to lure recruits into hard-to-fill positions.

6. Job training. Vice President Dick Cheney once said, "The military is not a social welfare agency; it's not a jobs program." If you enlist, the military does not have to place you in your chosen career field or give you the specific training requested. Even if enlistees do receive training, it is often to develop skills that will not transfer to the civilian job market. (There aren't many jobs for M240 machine-gunners stateside.)

7. War, combat, and your contract. First off, if it's your first time enlisting, you're signing up for eight years. On top of that, the military can, without your consent, extend active-duty obligations during times of conflict, "national emergency," or when directed by the president. This means that even if an enlistee has two weeks left on his/ her contract (yes, even Guard/Reserve) or has already served in combat, she/he can still be sent to war. More than a dozen U.S. soldiers have challenged "stop-loss" measures like these in court so far, but people continue to be shipped off involuntarily. The military has called thousands up from Inactive Ready Reserve -- soldiers who have served, some for as long as a decade, and been discharged. The numbers: twice as many troops are fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan per year as during the Vietnam War. One-third of the troops who have gone to Iraq have gone more than once. The highest rate of first- time deployments belongs to the Marine Corps Reserve: almost 90 percent have fought.

Counterrecruitment for a better world

Ready to create a truly grassroots, people powered movement? Anti-war activism is changing. The familiar sights and sounds of large protests are giving way to quieter, but far more resonating, one-on-one work in classrooms, career centers, and communities. Whenever you hear people decry the lack of large-scale protest in the United States, even as the latest polls show more than 60 percent of people are opposed to the current war in Iraq, remember that the model for effectively challenging war is taking a different shape.


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: iraq war, recruitment, counterrecruitment

Army veteran Aimee Allison has led school and community counterrecruitment activities over the last decade. David Solnit is the editor of Globalize Liberation: How to Uproot the System and Build a Better World. For more information on Army of None, visit the website.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from War on Iraq! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Mike Males
Posted by: mmales on Sep 20, 2007 12:46 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In 1950, the average American 45-54 year-old's income was just 40% higher than the average 15-24-year-old's. Today, 170% higher, as incomes of older generations have skyrocketed while those of younger cohorts have remained stagnant. That fact, more than any other, explains why millions of impoverished youth have few better options other than to enlist in the military, even with its dangers and frauds. Confronting today's vicious generation war, in which older Americans have relentlessly enriched themselves, lowered their taxes, cut education and employment services for young people, shoveled massive education and public funding debts on the young, and voted for huge corporate tax cuts and bailouts benefiting their richest peers, is crucial to starving the military as an employer of last resort for poorer, debt-indentured young people with few options. There are many progressive interests that want to see their issues as isolated from this larger impoverishment of future generations amid record enrichment of the middle-aged, but there is no goal more important than generational economic justice and funding good opportunities for younger, poorer, mostly black and Latino young people, which will help resolve many of the problems progressives deplore. If you correctly oppose military service for the young, tell us what better options for the young you would be willing to lobby and pay taxes to fund. www.YouthFacts.org

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Mike Males Posted by: Camilla Cracchiolo
» RE: Mike Males Posted by: PJAW
» RE: Mike Males Posted by: Camilla Cracchiolo
» Uh, right. Posted by: sfo
An Honorable Profession In The Hands Of Dishonorable People
Posted by: NoPCZone on Sep 20, 2007 12:49 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I am a veteran of 8 years active service in the US Army (1982-1990) and am proud of my service to the nation, the Army I served in and the men and women I served beside. Serving one's country is an old and honorable task and millions before me have done so, sometimes at the price of their very lives.

It takes a lot of faith in our nation to sign away your life for years, trusting that the political leadership and the citizens that elect them will not use you as cannon fodder or expose you to needless danger for some unworthy cause, and every citizen bears a responsibility to those who have made that pledge to not waste the gift of their service. The nation also should not condemn those serving to substandard pay or benefits, as the Chickenhawks seem to favor.

I do not dispute the bulk of the article, but am take umbrage with it's tone and conclusions. Recruiters lie, politicians send our troops on missions not in our nation's interest and the vast majority of Americans seem to be O.K. with it. We have the military organized, equipped, trained and employed by our elected representatives- paid for with your tax dollars. None of this will change until the people get off of their collective butts and demand something better.

We need an Army, just not the one we have. The problem is not largely one of those serving, but one of those who write the checks and make the rules. That would be our President and our Congress- elected by you.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» not true Posted by: KaptainSpiffy
» Bush's contempt for the troops Posted by: mrcentrist
Our Army is on the verge of breaking
Posted by: vox persona on Sep 20, 2007 2:08 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I've been saying since the year our Decider-In-Chief took our military into Mesopotamia, that he would break our Army. Avoiding active combat by hiding out in the champagne division of the Alabama Air National Guard through the use of privilege, he all too cavalierly sent our troops into his bloody mess. To send our National Guard to police a Muslim country was the height of hypocrisy. No wonder we've had to loosen recruiting standards, I'm surprised the draft has not yet been reinstated. Stop-loss programs are a disgrace, and lying to youngsters to get them to sign up is shameful, all traceable to King George II's tragic blunder of a policy.
There was a time (like 12/8/41) when this nation went to war and recruiting offices all across the nation were swamped. But that was in response to legitimate war for legitimate reasons, this 'war' is anything but legitimate. Nor is it Constitutional. I cannot find anywhere in the text anything about Congress abdicating it's responsibility (Article 1, Section8, clause11) and 'granting authority'....?!!??!? One party rule under the Republicans was a travesty. And the cowering Democrats were of no help. Fear, fear, terror alerts, 9/11, more fear, and a docile scared populace that mostly trusted the office of the presidency rounded out the scene. It was absolutely diabolical, the military industrial complex won out again.
Among Constitutional Ammendments that were proposed but never ratified was this gem from 1916: All acts of war should be put to a national vote. Anyone voting yes had to register as a volunteer for service in the United States Army. I wish they had passed that one. Just as good would be one that, upon the authorization of military actions (war), the adult children of those in Congress would be subject to a draft. That would put an end to illegitimate wars...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Why there is no draft Posted by: Dawn L
» RE: Why there is no draft Posted by: AMERICAN VETERAN
» Wrong again Posted by: leafsong1
"Other Priorities"
Posted by: Tom Degan on Sep 20, 2007 2:39 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Let's face it, young people have got to know that joining the military is a bad option. IT is by now obvious that their civilian leaders connot be trusted.

The title of Michael Moore's last book asked the musical question, "Will they ever trust us again?" The answer is "no", nor should they. Is that an "un-American thing to say? I couldn't care less if I tried. Just call me a citizen of the good ol' planet Earth.

Tom Degan
Goshen, NY
"The Rant" by Tom Degan

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

How many less-than discharges? and...
Posted by: dancerkc on Sep 20, 2007 3:24 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I haven't finished the article but I really have to comment now. I am astonished at this pair of figures:
1 - If you receive a less than honorable discharge (as one in four do),
2 - leave the military early (as one in three do)

Is that really 25-percent with less-than honorable? If so I am stunned. And how do you mean, leave early? Then there is that deposit on enlisting.

I got out of the service 7 November 1972 and while recruiters lying were common enough back then (mine did some minor lying and everyone had their recruiter told me such and such story) this other stuff just leaves me dumbfounded.

I would never have conceived of the idea that 25-percent would leave the service with a less-than honorable. As far as I knew, for my time, a less-than honorable discharge was very rare. Almost all of use got honorables. It was expected. If this 25% is correct then something has changed massively - in the ugly direction - but what, exactly.

Could you also please clarify leaving early. Does this mean before the original contract agreement time or is this anytime before retirement or something else. I'm left not knowing how to evaluate "early."

As far as the Montgomery GI bill, wow, it seems to be a far cry from the one I used for assistance. What the hell has happened?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Hell no, don't you dare go!
Posted by: paul_revere on Sep 20, 2007 3:46 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Sorry to say, but I will tell every citizen I meet who is emerging into adulthood and out of high school that the military is the last place to look for employment while the current Administration is in power. The best thing to do is to STARVE THE BEAST! Stay out! And those in Iraq should desert and resist. If the soldiers put down their arms and walk away from the illegal and immoral occupation, then Bush and Cheney are left with crap on their face. If they try to use Blackwater and other private armies, then the Iraqi resisters/armies (Shia and Sunni) will eventually swarm them and drive them out or make them disappear. The private armies can all go to hell.

The military should be shrunk anyway. I don't believe in a large Army or Marine Corp because these branches of the service are used to invade other countries. It's time we organize and build up our defense at home -- missile defense against attacks, border and port security, strengthen National Guard, State Troopers and Border Patrol. And for God's sake, disband homeland security. What a joke and an assault on our freedoms. Screw Homeland Security!

I've traveled to other countries. South American and Central American countries have militia and ships at many ports. Yes, many are for security against drug smugglers, but their presence probably does discourage terrorist acts at those locations and in the surrounding areas.

Shrink the military and quit goose-stepping around the globe. Don't enlist. Work hard in school and get out and find something else to do or create your own business. Maybe the next Prez (if a Dem) will correct the outsourcing of jobs and help young people secure good start-up capital/SBA loans or help with some free college education (imagine the billions spent on the military/invasion that could have financed education!)

STARVE THE BEAST and stay alive!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Many kids have no other option Posted by: LeftCoastProgressive
"Sure, kid..."
Posted by: kepstein7777 on Sep 20, 2007 4:14 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The headline picture was good.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

it is obvious that....
Posted by: ellie on Sep 20, 2007 4:19 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
if the recruitment campaigns fail, a draft will follow, bank on it...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: it is obvious that.... Posted by: colinmeister
» RE: it is obvious that.... Posted by: JSquercia
» false reasoning Posted by: applepie
» RE: it is obvious that.... Posted by: Darian
» RE: it is obvious that.... Posted by: VZEQICVA
» RE: it is obvious that.... Posted by: Camilla Cracchiolo
The Game Changes
Posted by: robchapman on Sep 20, 2007 5:27 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The author's contentions are as old as the Army.

When I was in basic training in Ft. Dix, NJ in 1973, the Drill Sergeant sat us down one day in a field and laughed at us and told us that we were all suckers for believing that lying SOB: the recruiter.

I left the Army, went to college, have earned two advanced degrees and had a very satisfying career in human services, health administration and teaching. The Army did not hold me back, nor did it transform me into a more disciplined and achievement oriented person.

My son served in the Navy, my daughter in the National Guard, my next son is enlisting and I have two nephews on active duty one in the Air Force, the other a paratrooper in Baghdad.

The Navy son graduated summa cum laude from a medical tech program, my daughter earned a master's with honors and teaches high school in the South Bronx and my other son and nephews have high aspirations.

One's perspective changes enormously when it is one's kids and nephews rather than oneself serving. Suddenly one takes a much more serious and critical interest in the way the military is employed.

Each of my kids and nephews made a deal with the recruiter that, all other factors being equal the service will honor.

Each of my kids understood at the time they signed on the bottom of the contract that the military could change their assignment based on their own conduct or the needs of the military.

The recruiter explained that, we discussed it and I know they all understand that the military is not a guarantee, but a shared risk.

Shared risk means that they agreed to bear the burden of combat if they are called upon to do so. In exchange for this, society, through the military offered them financial rewards, post service benefits and training in military specialities that might or might not be congruent with their post service careers.

Shared risk means that nothing is guaranteed. They WILL bear the burdens of combat if called upon to do so. They could be killed, maimed or psychologically crippled by the experience.

They did not undertake these burdens for the training or for the career following their service.

Like any other HONORABLE enlistee, they signed to serve our country and society and fight our enemies and protect us from their agressive actions.

Their honor and courage and the honor and courage of hundreds of thousands of others like them are what stand between us and the cruel and lawless people of the world.

Their example of courage and honor transcend the career minded carping that the writer of this article spewed out.

The failings of our military are not among the rank and file, rather, they are lodged in the political and command structures that disrespect and abuse their loyalty.

The War in Iraq is an egregious example of such abuse.

The continued prosecution of the War in Iraq is an act of profound disrespect on the part of the political and command structures to those of us who taught our kids to serve with honor.

Robert Chapman
Lansing, NY

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: The Game Changes Posted by: VZEQICVA
» APPLAUSE! Posted by: Rolomax
» RE: The Game Changes Posted by: Aristotles
» RE: The Game Changes Posted by: katz22br
Patriot Act Section 9528
Posted by: soulrebeljc on Sep 20, 2007 5:35 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm surprised the article didn't mention this, though the book probably does. This is a little known clause in the (un)Patriot Act that ties federal funding for schools to giving student personal info to military recruiters. I have been a HS teacher for 9 years, and each year this has been in effect, I tell my students about it first day of school, because school districts DO NOT adequately inform students and parents of the law - and that students ahve a right to OPT OUT. Of course they can't Opt Out if they don't know the law. Yes, some districts bury a little "do not give my information to the military" in the FERPA (Family Education and Right to Privacy Act) regulations, somewhere in 20 pages of other beginning of school info, but this is not adequately informing parents and students of the law. I've never seen a district openly say "Hey, the military's gonna come looking for your info - do you want them to have it." When I have done my "Opt Out" drives, invariably the bulk of people say "I had no idea this was going on" - Well of course you didn't, they don't want you to know. I distribute bullet lists of the points made at the beginning of the article along with Opt Out forms. When I have petitioned school boards to make this law more publicly known, they have refused, saying that they don't want to appear as "taking a position" on the war. Fuck that, since when was informing people of the law "taking a position." Anyway, school districts I have been in do not allow "counterrecruitment" tabling even though there is a 1986 California ruling that says military recruitment on HS campus is political speech (pro-war is a political position). So recruiters can come and set up their tables and give out their little trinkets, but nobody can set up a table saying "here's why you might want to think twice about signing that." Ironic that schools are complicit in getting their students killed because they don't have the sack to allow counterrecruitment - which is why if you are a HS teacher, you should take it upon yourself to distribute Opt-out forms to your students. There is no crime in informing people of the law. Go to militaryfreezone.org and download a copy of an Opt Out form.

On top of the school BS, recruiters also wander concert venues looking for their disenfranchised targets. I was at the Family Values tour a few weeks ago, and the Marines and Army both had booths and bands of roving uniformed recruiters wandering around. Unbelievable. Leave these kids alone, they're at the concert to have a good time, not to sign their life away.

Recruiters sell death, plain and simple.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» You mean Section 9528 of NCLB Posted by: apple pie
» Yes, I mean Section 9528 of NCLB Posted by: soulrebeljc
» RE: Patriot Act Section 9528 Posted by: VZEQICVA
» I agree, but... Posted by: aonghus36
» RE: I agree, but... Posted by: applepie
» RE: I agree, but... Posted by: soulrebeljc
thoroughly "embedded"
Posted by: jefhadist on Sep 20, 2007 6:17 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
the military and it's mindset, are so thoroughly"embedded" in almost every aspect of u.s. government, finance, research, education, etc. that it will take/is taking generations to change the mentality of "military intelligence." (a true oxymoron if there ever was one) the bucks that the feds shell out to states which divy up the sacred military budget pie are thought of as essential for the everyday "security" of millions of paychecks. the prostituting of research dollars from the military teat leads even institutions of "higher ed." such as the uc system (livermore/los alamos nuclear labs) to sell their souls for dross. and so it goes. even a portion of the breast cancer stamp goes to support military research. it's so insidious as to be downfight unbelievable but there you have it. ours is a culture of violence and the threat of violence and we are only now beginning to chart a course out of this maze of coercion. tax dollar supported? hell yes... but who has the guts to not pay?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

America has been drowning in greed and scams already.
Posted by: maxpayne on Sep 20, 2007 6:20 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The Army is sadly a perfect place to commit suicide these days more than anything else.

P.S.: One of my co-workers who served in the military had to wait 3 years to get a secret clearance despite her clean record. For civilians, getting a top secret would only take 2 years at the most in the same company !

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Gen. Smedley Butler
Posted by: defrag on Sep 20, 2007 6:42 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The quote from Butler piqued my interest. I'd only heard of him as the one who tipped off authorities to the plot to overthrow FDR in a coup. Here's another quote from him:

I spent 33 years and four months in active military service and during that period I spent most of my time as a high class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism. I helped make Mexico and especially Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street. I helped purify Nicaragua for the International Banking House of Brown Brothers in 1902-1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for the American sugar interests in 1916. I helped make Honduras right for the American fruit companies in 1903. In China in 1927 I helped see to it that Standard Oil went on its way unmolested. Looking back on it, I might have given Al Capone a few hints.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Abusing the Guard
Posted by: Arkham42 on Sep 20, 2007 9:06 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
On of the big problems with Iraq is that it is causing us to be much less safe at home. Prior to the 41st BCT (ORANG) deploying to Afghanistan, we had plenty of equipment...and had to leave most of it when we left. I had my first (and second to last) drill recently and we have practically nothing now.

Now the Pacific NW can have (and has) floods, fires, riots, tsunamis, earthquakes and volcanic activity. Mt Ranier is listed as the most dangerous geological site in North America. So being in the Guard here is serious business...a mission that is now seriously compromised since we don't have the equipment.

Worse, this constant attention to war-fighting over-shadows this need. I once had a week course in level 1 forest fire suppression that the Guard could keep me licensed with just 3 hours of training a year. Needless to say, I didn't get that training the next year. That and when we surged to New Orleans for Katrina duty, Oregon had to buy all these hip-waders even though we often have floods here. So why are we throwing away money in Iraq when the Guard here doesn't have the tools to protect the citizens most of us Guard types joined to save?

I mean I've done 17 years in the Army, both Active and reserve and I've never seen any training for what we'll do in case of a big earthquake; a mission a LOT more likely for us to have to do prior to Bush's Imperialistic wars. The Guard's mission has always been to back-stop the Active component in MAJOR wars; but our primary mission is to protect the citizens of our states.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Abusing the Guard Posted by: AMERICAN VETERAN
NEVER BELIEVE A Farouking WORD
Posted by: woody, tokin' librul on Sep 20, 2007 9:17 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
you hear from a recruiter. Not one!!!
Not even the articles "the," "an," or "a."
They lie without even thinking.
ANY vet will tell you: Get It In Writing, and even then don't bet your life on it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Soldiers are not the sharpest tools in the shed- but they can pull a trigger!
Posted by: vomeggido on Sep 20, 2007 9:26 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Many high ranking military officials have been committing suicide in large numbers (actually they have hit a record high) since the Iraq war, and sadly on their way to the dirt nap, many officers and grunts have spoken about their disillusionment noting several key points as discussed in this article.

Unfortunately most enlistee's sign up not out of patriotic duty, but rather it is a way (although its not because its a lie) to continue their education or job placement- this only really works if they go career (and even then its really just a long con). And its a heart breaker because it only leads in one of two directions- which is hatred or defeat.

By the time these poor dopes realize they have been manipulated and there is not a pot of gold- they must be forced to accept their involvement as duty of service to their country (the contracts they sign leave them bound and tied and its forced acceptance at best)- sadly this is not much of a reward and they must continue to fight- now for simple benefits they are unlikely to receive.

Thankfully many have returned with similar stories and they are not all hopped up to promote to new recruits any benefit in joining in the first place.

One thing that isn't mentioned in this article is that most recruiters are paid salesmen who have done little or no active duty and definitely have not been on the front lines so to speak. Many recruiters have varied petty criminal backgrounds (usually discovered when a recruiter gets busted for something) and this speaks volumes in and of itself.

My heart does break for the enlistee's and former soldiers who believe they were doing their duty- upon a deep and meaningful conversation with anyone who has been in active service, most will admit they made an egregious error by signing up.

The U.S. Military is nothing more than the worlds toughest and most funded street gang with a license to kill- at least that is what is has transmogrified into.

The Military is not what its purported to be and it is becoming more and more obvious everyday to which one can easily conclude that Americans who fall for this effective con-job are not the sharpest tools in the shed- so when America introduces itself to foreign countries (via war, relief or otherwise) via our servicemen- we are not sending over our best and brightest- and certainly not the cream of our crop.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

What goes around
Posted by: willymack on Sep 20, 2007 10:12 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Comes around. I hate to use such a hoary phrase, but it's appropriate here. When I was of military age, TV advertising was just getting started. I'd wanted to be a sailor since age five, so it didn't matter to me who advertised what or where. My mind was already made up. Most of what I remember from those days is the armed forces advertised the long-range benefits of a CAREER (20 or more years) as opposed to money up front, we'll make you into a superman, etc. I was fond of telling "sea stories" to my sons about a service and job that I loved with all my heart and soul. The stories had their effect as both of them joined the Navy as well. They were sold the Navy's nuclear power program by one of the slickest salesmen I'd ever seen. Since their test scores were so high, they both qualified. The difference between my day and theirs is that the recruting process had been vastly refined over time. My sons only stayed in for one enlistment as opposed to my career, but their intensive training served them both very well, as they're now both highly successful (and well paid) in their respective civilian careers. They had their share of complaints about the Navy and its harsh discipline, but they NEVER COMPLAINED ABOUT BEING LIED TO. My granddaughter has just finished Navy Basic Training, (yeah, I told her a few sea stories, too), and is now in an advanced electronics course of study. I can't speak for the Army, Marine Corps, or the other services, but I get the impression that the Navy STILL treats its personnel fairly. Keep in mind that when I joined, the national leadership, from the President on down, was in office LEGALLY, as opposed to the crooks now in office. My advice to ANYONE contemplating joining any armed force is that to do so now would be to support and condone the most evil regime ever to occupy and disgrace their positions, our people, and our nation.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Support Iraq Veterans Against the War!
Posted by: thoughtcriminal on Sep 20, 2007 11:59 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The most convincing antiwar arguments about the invasion and occupation of Iraq come from the soldiers who've been there and seen it for themselves. http://www.ivaw.org/

IVAW is organizing veterans and troops to end the war, but we can't do it alone.
We all want this war to end now. To achieve this goal, IVAW has developed a strategy, but we need your help to make it happen.
This summer, IVAW members have toured bases from Georgia to New York hosting BBQs for veterans and active duty service members to spread the word about the organization and its work to bring the troops home now. Our members were greeted with “Semper Fi” by active duty Marines at Camp Lejeune’s mess hall in June, helped expand our largest on-base chapter at Fort Drum in New York, and celebrated July 4th with a fundraiser and concert in Philadelphia.
Now it is your turn.
We are asking our supporters to host Bring Them Home House Parties to spread the word about IVAW’s strategy to end the war now and to help us raise money to implement this strategy. IVAW plans to more than double our budget in the coming year as we expand our organizing on and near military bases and step into a larger leadership role within the anti-war movement. In order to do this we need to expand our base of supporters.


These brave men and women are also willing to come speak to high schools - if you have the cash, contact your local high school, arrange and event, and buy one of them a plane ticket.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I guess Arlo won't be sent to the Group W bench anymore
Posted by: chaoslegs on Sep 20, 2007 1:04 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
for littering and creating a nuisance.

around 17 percent of the first-time recruits, or about 13,600, were accepted under waivers for various medical, moral or criminal problems, including misdemeanor arrests and drunk driving.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: WWW.ARLO.NET Posted by: jefhadist
The problem I had with my recruiter...
Posted by: RON_KING on Sep 20, 2007 10:03 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...wasn't so much that he lied to me, it was more that he didn't say anything about what I COULD have signed on for. Since I had already decided to enlist, he just wanted to place a warm body in whatever position he was short on that month. That usually means one thing; 11B. So off to the Infantry I went. I had no beef with that, I just wanted to get a steady job and have some fun in the process, which I got. Anyone that has fired a 90mm or TOW system will know what I mean.

But what I later thought about was that I wasn't really suited for Infantry, even though I mostly enjoyed the experience. My entrance exam score was nearly perfect, I only missed the Trig questions because I had never taken that class in High School. With my score, they SHOULD have been looking to place me in a specialty more suited to that score. Had they not been just trying to place warm bodies in whatever slot they were short on, they might have actually had a better functioning corps of recruits.

But then, on my enlistment guarantee form, it read something like "Even though you may be trained in your preferred MOS you may be assigned to a position in your secondary MOS." What I found out was that EVERYONE'S secondary MOS was 11B. In my squad of 10 (Heavy Weapons Platoon), we had 4 whose primary MOS was NOT 11B. That meant that they were trained in something other than Infantry. Now don't get me wrong, these were very bright fellas and picked up what they needed to know fairly quickly (we were ALWAYS training). But if we were in a conflict, like we are now, they would have gone to battle without ANY but the most rudimentary training. They would have been slaughtered fairly quickly.

So my thought on the subject is that the military is not interested in putting people in the position where they would do the most good, by temperament and training, they are only interested in putting bodies in the empty slots.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Owned by a little 'ole lady that only drove it to church
Posted by: Axiom69 on Sep 21, 2007 6:19 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Is anybody really surprised by anything here? Recruiters are afterall just salesmen. They put their product in the best possible light. Tell you all the pro's and airbrush the con's. Like the car salesman that tells you about the bumper to bumper warranty but leaves out all the things that aren't covered. Or when they tell you about the great financing they offer even when you can get a better rate from your own bank.
One thing I don't understand are the "anti-recruitment" efforts. Some people believe that if you eliminate armies you can eliminate war. The reverse is true. As members of this planet we must first eliminate wars then we can do away with armies. Congress would be hard pressed to justify a huge military and military budget if they hadn't fought anyone in years. During Clinton's Presidency there was a consensus that we could shrink the military due to the fall of the Soviet Union. The Army went from 19 active duty divisions to 11. Now we're trying to scrape together brigades to replace soldiers in Iraq. 8 more divisions would have come in real handy about now. As long as there are wars (which there always will be) this nation will have an Army. That army WILL have soldiers. If they can't recruit them then there is only one alternative, draft them.
Hey I don't like it either but I'm a realist. Show me REALISTIC way to do away with the military and still protect this country and I will jump on board. Now everyone get your guns and shoot the messenger. The recruiter told be I'm bullet proof. :)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Lies to the Lies
Posted by: bubbacheese on Sep 21, 2007 8:08 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
1. Recruiters lie - Yes and No, it's a broad statement to say all recruiters lie, that is simply not true. I don't believe I did, not on purpose, I would think that the pressures that they place on the recruiters quotes causes this to happen. Again there are always good and bad, when recruites dry up you still have to meet your quota people resort to what ever they have to. Some people would do anything to get ahead. Same situation here.
2. The military contract guarantees nothing. And there is nothing that says we have to pay tax either.

3. Advertised signing bonuses are bogus. - Not true, generally not everyone is going to get one. I never did, but its about demand, my brother got 15,000 to join the Army National Guard a few years ago. Again it's about supply and demand. The harder to fill job generally have bonus and it depended upon meeting certain critiara. False

4. The military won't make you financially secure. This is true, but I've never heard of anyone ever saying it would. Stupid statement.

5. Money for college ($71,424 in the bank?). Two separt programs here, the GI Bill and the Army or Navy Collage fund. Generally its not paid out to the school its sent to you in a check. From what I remember it was based on how many credits you were taking a semerstor depend on how much you would get. Everyone would get the GI bill, the Navy Colleage fund was something that you have to quaily for.

6. Job training. - You have control over what you choice to do before you enlist. If you chose to be a gunner then your a gunner, there are lots of jobs that do cross over, all the medical jobs, firefighting, police, etc. Elec, engines, airplanes.... Where do you thing the majority of pilots come from? Simply not true. Stupid statement

7. War, combat, and your contract. Yes the first enlistment is 8 years, but that doesn't mean your serving for 8 years depending on the contract YOU SIGN. Example would be 2years active duty, 6 years active reserves. The General contract is 4 years active 4 years inactive reserves. High skilled jobs such as Nuclear field requires 6 years Active duty and 2 years inactive res. But they are guarentied ranks, promotions, such as e-3 upon completing bootcamp, E-4 after their first school and E-5 upon completing there Schools plus what ever bonus. Again if you were do to get out and they are short on your job skill they could extend you. I've never had met anyone that got extended in my 15 years, just has been happening recently.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Lies to the Lies Posted by: bubbacheese
» RE: truth to the Lies! Posted by: raywigton
» RE: truth to the Lies! Posted by: bubbacheese
Privatizing the Military-Scariest thing I see
Posted by: Camilla Cracchiolo on Sep 21, 2007 8:55 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The most frightening thing I see is the privatization of the military through "security contractors" like Blackwater.

I'm a student of history, and I see a lot of parallels to the time of the fall of the Roman Republic. The vast accumulations of private wealth, the financiers essentially running society, the decreasing percentage of the population who are small farmers or business owners. But what broke the back of Rome was private armies.

Even though the Roman state did pay soldiers most of the time, what caused the civil wars that brought down the republic was the fact that the vast majority of the money made by soldiers was through looting, dividing of spoils and bonuses paid by their generals. So, when a general had a problem with the Senate, naturally his troops, who loved him (especially if he was really good at providing loot), marched on the city with him. Soldiers occupied Rome several times before Caesar was just declared Dictator with a "Please stop the civil wars. Pretty Please." mandate.

Whatever criticisms or praises one has of our armed forces, they all, from foot soldier to highest general take an oath to defend, not the president, not the government, not even the country, but THE CONSTITUTION. From all enemies, foreign AND DOMESTIC. Our founders did that very deliberately, having modeled our government upon Rome, and being well aware of the 'dangers of standing armies" as Washington put it.

And some of today's generals and admirals take that oath to the Constitution very seriously indeed. Some have resigned rather than see the Constitution be turned into toilet paper.

I've always thought that so long as our military took an oath to defend the constitution and not to individual presidents or corporations, we had a chance. After all, the British Empire fell, yet the British preserved their democracy. This is, to my knowledge, the *only* example in history of an empire remaining democratic, but then democracies and republics are pretty rare animals on the ground of history. And only recently have there been more than two, Rome and certain cities in Ancient Greece, notably Athens, both of which were destroyed by becoming empires.

But whom do the people in these private armies swear to serve? Their bosses. Who pay them 10 times what a regular soldier makes. Could they be turned against the citizenry? In a heartbeat and in a way I think regular troops would never allow.

Scares the hell out of me.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

So...how do we go about stopping recruitment
Posted by: onecanadianbacon on Sep 21, 2007 12:42 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
the article doesn't really seem to discuss viable (that is, in non-ideological terms) things that can be done now to stop the disaster that it calls military recruitment. any ideas?? maybe the article should give links to organizations that actively try to counteract military recruitment.

also, anti-recruitment would only force soldiers who are already enlisted to stay in the military longer under the new philosophy of "stop-loss."

Basically, what can be done now--today--that would be useful (aside from sitting here and discussing things).

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

A great resource for counter recruitment
Posted by: emopaul on Sep 21, 2007 10:04 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Great article.

It's important to know that there is a way for kids to opt out of the military's recruitment database. Opt out your kids, your nieces and nephews or your friend's kids!
They deserve to know they have an option.
Leave My Child Alone. ORG
and a video to watch with friends and family:
Leave My Child Alone Video

Please pass these along. Thanks!

- Paul Lundahl

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I guess I'm one of the 1 in 3 that leaves early
Posted by: sfo on Sep 22, 2007 8:46 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I joined because I was broke and had no other choice (I was homeless and had less than 5 dollars to my name - living off the charity of friends).

I saved almost every dime the Air Force gave me and when I decided I'd had enough - I got out. They stuck me in some menial job after originally giving me a contract for a computer job.

They do a good job with the brain washing though. At first I actually bought into all of their propaganda and was considering trying to become an officer and make a career of it. If you're in long enough, eventually you will end up in a bad situation you can do nothing about. A base in hell, a bunch of co-workers you despise, etc.

You're never trapped though. They just want you to believe you are. I never got a return on my 1200 dollars of GI Bill money but I did use over 6 grand worth of "tuition assistance" while on active duty for 2 years.

The military was looking to use me and I was looking to use them. That's America - a mercenary culture. They got two years of flawless and stellar service from a highly intelligent individual and I got some money to start a real life with. When I was ready to leave, I left. I don't regret any of it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »]