Recruiting: Put the Warrior Back into Society

Soldiers For the Truth, SFTT.org ^ | 04-04-2005 | Michael S. Woodson

[strategofr]

Here is a new idea. Sort of a "super boy scouts." A red-state only thing, but it would work. The idea is that we pay the price, as a society, of having warriors---train them from birth. In effect, we already do this for office workers---that's what regular school is.

This would work. It is a modified version of the old Spartan idea.

[frankiep]

Has anyone ever seen the recruiting commercials/ads for the British Army? They don't try to sugar coat things like our army does. In their ads you see people getting dirty, under intense pressure, cold, tired, wet, etc. I don't think that they are having trouble recruiting people with this.

Our Army, has ads/commercials that are such obvious BS and PC filled crap that it's pretty understandable why we are having problems.

[Magnum44]

Paragraphs are our friends, even to army recruits. :)

[fireforeffect]

Might I suggest some formating?

[CasearianDaoist]

The army is not having problems filling slots - it is just media hype.

[EternalHope]

The problem in not marketing. It is the constant anti-military drivel from the MSM, the entertainment industry, the Dems, and PC teachers/profs.

With all that anti-military sentiment, it's a wonder anybody signs up at all.

[Mr Ramsbotham]

Might I suggest some formating?

Also some spel checking.

[gandalftb]

Frankly, most Marines I know got connected through family. Dads, uncles, grandfathers, etc. working with their kids, hunting, fishing, hiking, sports, etc. It would make more sense to have an organization of parents promoting interest in the various services.

There are all the vet organizations but they don't do much outreach to promoting new warriors. There are many more patriot parents that never served that aren't welcomed into the vet organizations. Every football program has a booster club.

The services generally don't have any time for warrior promoters who for one reason or another didn't serve. It is a mistake and a blown opportunity. Look at the number of hunters in the U.S., far more than all the vets put together. Our recruiters need to get on the ball if they want the best and most family supported recruits.

When my family served we always reached out to unattached kids and made them feel like part of our Marine family. Very powerful recruiting and those recruits with a support base always perform better.

[WildBillArthur]

Interesting, I first thought of Sparta and that this was probably going to be a kooky tin-foil helmet article.

However, the idea has merit. As I recall, all male citizens were expected to be part of our countries militia by our founding fathers. A little physical training, orienteering, shooting and maybe some kung fu classes in school wouldnt hurt anything and it would let some kids find out that they really like that sort of thing. They should tie it back in with the concepts of duty to your county and maybe have them read the constitution, if that isnt banned by some judge somewhere. It would also benifit the police departments and other law enforcement. I was always facinated at how many new recurits and officers I met in the military that had never even touched a gun prior to signing up. Its sad really.

I hate to point this out, but the Marines dont have nearly the problems the Army does with their quotas, mostly because they have the "maybe you can be one of us" attitude vs. "Army of one???" Of course we have fewer seats to fill, so I'll give them that.

[kms61]

No, the problem is that people are being shot at, pure and simple. That's the only thing that's changed from when the Army and Marines WERE meeting their goals. And it's the main reason why the AF and Navy are still making their numbers--there's a perception, based in fact, that those services are a safer alternative for those interested in military service.

The author makes a few points, but he overanalyzes. What's going on here is a test of the all-volunteer military in time of protracted military engagement. Nobody has ever tried it before, and the jury is still out on whether it will work.

[EternalHope]

No, the problem is that people are being shot at, pure and simple. That's the only thing that's changed from when the Army and Marines WERE meeting their goals.

People were being shot at after 9-11, and the Army had no problem meeting its recruitment goals.

What changed? After 9-11 the nation was united. Now we are not.

[kms61]

There's a difference between a three month campaign and a three year campaign. We are going to be in combat for the forseeable future. Anybody who signs up now is in all likelhood going to spend a year or more in Iraq. That's had time to sink in on the recruiting pool and their parents. Nobody wants to see their kid killed, even if it's for a good cause. It's just human nature. That resistance is hard for a recruiter to overcome.

Don't misconstrue my post as a comment on whether we should be in Iraq. It's just a comment on what the effect of our involvement has been recruitingwise.

[jec41]

Most children are now taught from birth that any war or conflict is wrong and that we are the guilt party and have robbed the world. They fail to see that these same people who are against the military would take us over in a minute if they could.

[sheltonmac]

There is no psychological trick, hat change, badge, moniker or advertising campaign that can improve recruiting. The only way to improve Army recruiting is to improve the quality of recruits over the long term. It can only happen if recruiting dies and martial training and tradition rises in U.S. public elementary school curricula.

As if gubmint skoolz weren't indoctrinating our kids enough; now they want to start training them to kill and die for the state while they're still in diapers.

[sheltonmac]

Sort of a "super boy scouts." A red-state only thing, but it would work. The idea is that we pay the price, as a society, of having warriors---train them from birth.

Yeah, wasn't that tried already?

[Americanexpat]

I think you are right. Not enough people in the Army to give relief to the back to back combat tours.

[billbears]

Nobody wants to see their kid killed, even if it's for a good cause

And what cause would that be exactly? Since WMDs have not been found, and were not there according to the last US report, the only cause would be for freeing the Iraqis and 'spreading democracy'. Seems I remember a President warning specifically against that....oh yes...

She well knows that by once enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign independence, she would involve herself beyond the power of extrication, in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy, and ambition, which assume the colors and usurp the standard of freedom. The fundamental maxims of her policy would insensibly change from liberty to force....John Quincy Adams 1821

The only way to improve Army recruiting is to improve the quality of recruits over the long term. It can only happen if recruiting dies and martial training and tradition rises in U.S. public elementary school curricula. The qualities and skills of warriors should be built up gradually over time if our soldiers and Marines are to fulfill the nearly superhuman expectations society imposes: to kill their enemies while equipping the relatives and neighbors among whom their enemies live with the tools and mindset of democracy.

This fool (and unfortunately I do mean fool) is not advocating putting the warrior back into society, he's advocating a Spartan warrior state. Sounds like someone that's been hanging out with VDH a bit too long. Soldiers for Truth? Should be Soldiers that need to report for Psych Evals. Sorry but this one's beyond out there

[strategofr]

Heard of them.:) An inexperienced poster, that's all.

[CharlieOK1]

strategofr

Since Feb 20, 2005

Sort of a "super boy scouts." A red-state only thing, but it would work. The idea is that we pay the price, as a society, of having warriors---train them from birth.

Yeah, wasn't that tried already?

shelton, I think you found the true agenda of this noob

[strategofr]

"Frankly, most Marines I know got connected through family. Dads, uncles, grandfathers, etc. working with their kids, hunting, fishing, hiking, sports, etc. It would make more sense to have an organization of parents promoting interest in the various services."

You make a number of good points. I am of middle class Jewish background---absolutely no connection to the military growing up, but at a certain point in life, my evacuation and career turn brought me into very heavy contact with the "working class", including many veterans, people who were hunters, etc.

I did not grow up with them but I came to respect them on many levels. My "moment of truth" came when one of my new friends suggested that I buy a shotgun. Implicit was that he would take me out with it, show me how to shoot, and get me started "hunting." As much as I appreciated his desire to include me, however, I realized that that was not "me". In a sense, I felt too old at that point to begin that whole pathway. (I was about 26, but of course, these things are all relative.)


In a sense, the article is calling for a slightly formalized awareness of the process of which your "Marine family" is a part of on an informal basis. Not a national requirement, but organizations to promote the sort of experience that your family goes through without any special "help".

Personally, I think the Pantanna incident (sorry about the name, the Marine charged with improper shooting of a civilian) is highly damaging and needs to be resolved quickly and positively, with some kind of protection added against one asshole damaging not only an individual Marine (which is important) but Marine morale itself. Cynic that I am, I believe this important commodity tends to be directly attacked on purpose by those who wish to destroy us.

On the other hand, an article on Strategy Page indicates that there are plenty of recruits for combat positions, it is the "support" positions in the Army that are going begging. Of course, "support" is also dangerous in Iraq---everything is.

Part of it is, we just have to have more troops. This may require higher salaries. The shortage of troops causes overuse of troops, which leads people not to want to serve. the desire not to just boost up the pay and boost the ranks is part of the "it's almost over, we're reducing force" syndrome. With that attitude, it never gets over till you get run out. I say, flood the situation with force. Gain control, then hand off the baton fast (get out.)

We have too much waiting for perfection in the Iraqi forces we train. Give them tanks, artillery, some basic planes, and pull back to the borders. Let them decide how much media to let in and let them solve the problems the same way all the other Arab governments solve them. It's not pretty, but it must be done.