Recruiting
I went to see Fast Food Nation last night and before the film there was a long ad for for the Army National Guard, detailing not only the sort of benefits you can obtain through volunteering, but also the sort of exciting missions the Guard undertakes. Except, of course, they didn't mention anything about Iraq where tens of thousands of Guard soldiers are deployed. There was, instead, a vague mention of "overseas deployment." Nothing unusual about this, of course. If you watch a lot of male-oriented television programming you'll see lots of military recruitment ads of various sorts and they never mention that the modal outcome for a member of the US military these days is to be sent to fight in Iraq.
It is however, unusual in historical terms. If you look at recruting posters from World War I or World War II the situation was quite different.
It's not merely that these posters didn't obscure the fact that a war was going on. Rather, the fact of the war was the key selling point of the recruitment drives. Which makes sense. Leaving your home and family to go do an arduous job isn't an obviously appealing thing to do. You get money, to be sure, but patriotic appeals are a key part of getting people to volunteer. The war, in these terms, is a reason to sign up -- your country needs you to fight its enemies.
We have to assume that the Army's marketing people know what they're doing these days. And there professional judgment is that the Iraq War isn't like that. Their view is that "the war in Iraq is a vital and necessary cause that you should do your part for" won't be compelling to people. The best way to get them to sign up isn't quite to try and dupe them (everyone knows there's a war on) but certainly is to try and keep the war hidden and downplayed.
What's more, everyone takes this for granted. Nobody expects the Army to run ads saying "sign up and fight the Islamofascists in Iraq." I don't, however, think we've really thought the implications of this through. Lots of people are still opposed to a rapid withdrawal from Iraq. But does anyone think Iraq is a cause worth dying for at this point? Does anyone deny that a straightforward recruiting pitch wouldn't work? But staying in Iraq, obviously, means having people die for this mission. For a mission nobody really believes in anymore.
Comments
I saw the recruiting ad and I decided that, rather than commenting on liberal's blog posts I would sign up and do something real to help America win the War on Terror. I'd go put my ass on the line.
Since I really believe in this war, I'd just be a coward if I were to sit here typing when I could be killing the enemies of our country.
I should be heading off tomorrow. I'm putting my money where my mouth is.
"I should be heading off tomorrow. I'm putting my money where my mouth is."
I've never really understood the whole 'chickenhawk' slur. I supported the Kosovo and Afghanistan operations, but I never felt the slightest moral obligation to enlist. I don't think that makes me a bad person.
The Iraq hawks are fucked up because they've got the merits of the issue wrong, not because they're not enlisting.
-----
And fergawdsakes, can we skip the Fake Al business around here? It's tiresome enough over at Drum's place.
I had mixed emotions about both of those wars, but I never spouted off about how Western Civilization was in the balance. That's the difference, either you really believe that and you are doing nothing or you are just a windbag.
"The Iraq hawks are fucked up because they've got the merits of the issue wrong, not because they're not enlisting."
No, this is one of the main reasons why this war is so disgusting. These bastards that have gotten us in to this mess (and the ones cheerleading for it) were all to willing to send our soldiers off to die and get maimed for their hubris. Their sickness should be spit back in their faces constantly and asking the questions about why their blood is so much more precious than that of the unwashed masses is one of the ways to do that.
"No, this is one of the main reasons why this war is so disgusting. These bastards that have gotten us in to this mess (and the ones cheerleading for it) were all to willing to send our soldiers off to die and get maimed..."
I'm not sure you're really addressing my point.
If I had been President, I would have been willing to send our soldiers off to die and get maimed in Kosovo and Afghanistan. Despite not being President, I did support both of those wars, but I didn't enlist. Does that make me "sick"?
Again, what makes the Iraq hawks wrong is that they're dead wrong on the merits of the situation, not that they're not willing to put on the uniform.
Wasn't this well covered before? Chickenhawk is not an argument in itself, it's a response to moronic equations of "supporting the war" and "toughness" that we see all the time (at least we used to).
This is the side effect of being led by greedy, short-sighted imbeciles. The anti-terrorism fight is an important and worthy one, but when the adminstration's own plans and choices have sucked all of the merit out of it.
They have even undercut themselves. The "smaller footprint" revolution has led to an increasing reliance on private security contractors which in turn begs the question (along with many others) of why we are paying taxes to train people in the armed forces only to see them leave as soon as they can for a job at Blackrock or DynCorp. I don't begrudge anyone a federal sponsored jobs program, especially veterans, but the contractor trend seems to ultimately work against our long term best interests, especially from a recruitment and retention standpoint. Its not just the combat folks either, its logistic and medical personnel as well. The right hand and left hand are not only not communicating, they are diametrically opposed, and with the privatization crowd running the Pentagon, they appear to have put that fetish ahead of our own national interests.
When a company begins to contract out its core competency, the customer has to as "What am I paying you for again?"
Bravo Matt! This excellent post reminds of several important distinctions.
First there is the distinction between (1) a volunteer military force and a (2) Citizen/Permanent Resident Army, where those roughly fitting the relevant category are more or less equally likely to be conscripted.
Then there is the distinction between (3) an employment-model military that recruits through offering a competitive wage and interesting work versus a (4) civic-duty military that recruits by invoking a common cause. (This is mostly what your post is about as I read it.)
Lastly, there is the distinction between (5) the army that gets paid by non-governmental organizations (a mercenary or for-profit military) and (6) a military that is paid exclusively out of the Treasury.
I submit that none of these distinctions are really as clear cut as they are sometimes made out to be. There have been changes in the U.S. military along ALL of these dimensions since Gulf War I, since Vietnam, and since WWII... even though the U.S. has always had a fundamentally volunteer force when compared with, say, the armies of Napoleanic France. Or maybe there have not been any changes in the balance between (1) and (2)?
"Again, what makes the Iraq hawks wrong is that they're dead wrong on the merits of the situation, not that they're not willing to put on the uniform." -- Petey
Actually I understand (and endorse) your point. There are valid, worthwhile times to use military force and risk soldiers lives. I don't think you got my point, which may be because it was inartfully presented. I'll give it another shot.
The fact that they were dead wrong on the merits is obvious and has been since they started agitating for the invasion back in the '90s. The awful and sickening part of it is that they have been willing to send other people to die for their insanity and were never willing to put they or their families lives in the line of fire. It was always their grand idea but the fighting and dying had to be done by proxy (hence the thrust of Matt's post challenging the recruitment postures of the army that needs people to prosecute the war).
In my eyes that is depraved a la serial killing and they should have it spit in their faces for the rest of their lives. One of the ways to do this is to publically call them on it, often. It's not a policy discussion, it's a moral one.
Also, Petey, those were small scale missions where your help wasn't really needed. Iraq is pretty different.
This is a fascinating article, and I wish that Matt Yglesias, as a blogger, had the kind of connections to get some kind of a response, especially from Rummy or someone close to him. (I’d settle for anyone that has the slightest bit of influence over the matter.) Failing Matt's connections as a blogger, I wish an MSM type in his audience would follow up on this point.
I'd like to ask how the marketing of this war reflects either how the war has no credibility, the people waging the war have no credibility, or America has a created a culture and lifestyle incompatible with individual sacrifice. Basically, What is this marketing approach reflective of? The people, the culture, or the leaders? What’s the changeable cause?
Is it our commercial culture that makes us impervious to the techniques/devices of political rhetoric? Are commercials or marketing techniques so corrosive to our own good judgment, or our own ability to see and evaluate for ourselves? Can we no longer weigh what people say against what they do, or to look in hindsight for what was promised and measure it against what has come to fruition? What makes us so oblivious, and why? Do Americans lack depth? Do we have an essence? After the Iraqi war, is it time to re-evaluate our soul?”
Yglesias’s post especially undermines notions of hierarchal virtue or any kind of notions of quasi-divine right. In other words, we can't trust our leaders just because they're our leaders. There's no grace of God saving us from ourselves, there's nothing inherent in authority to create a sense of responsibility or accountability or a sense of communion.
Nobody was a "chickenhawk" in WWII. Basically every male in the appropriate age groups who passed the mental and physical tests for eligibility and didn't have a vital civilian sector job was involved in the war effort in some way. Our current hawks are constantly analogizing Iraq to WWII, saying that it is a save-the-civilization mission of profound significance, a do-or-die moment. Furthermore, unlike WWII, so few people are participating that the army clearly has a massive shortfall of personnel. Their unwillingness to put their bodies where their mouths are does say something.
The US wasn't short on troops for Kosovo or Afghanistan. The US desperately needs more troops in Iraq for their current deployment strategies. These are not particularly comparable situations.
I can see the case that a person might support the war, but not support it so desperately that they want to enlist. That's a position.
But conservative commentators have consistently made this war out to be the most important and best thing happening ever, and consistently questioned the patriotism of their domestic opponents, and in that context, the chickenhawk thing has some sting. I'm not a huge fan of the argument - I don't think it actually gets you much of anywhere, not in the way that actually getting into the meat of their arguments does - but I think it has a certain logic, and Petey's argument about Kosovo and Afghanistan doesn't invalidate it.
Petey is wrong. Iraq is very different from Kosovo or Afghanistan. The military is desperate for more troops in Iraq, we are considering withdrawing and LOOSING THE WAR because we can't send 500,000 soldiers as would be required to get the upper hand. If chickenhawks really think that civilization hangs on the balance they are disgusting cowards for not signing up.
A while back, Jon Henke and I exchanged some exchanged some emails about the whole chickenhawk thing. We basically came to agreement on the following (words are Jon's, and the context may be helpful, so there's the link):
"A person who would support a war, unless he had to fight it personally is subject to the chickenhawk label. A person who supports a war but chooses not to fight it is not necessarily subject to that label."
It's okay for Petey not to go to Kosovo because he really isn't needed there. We have enough troops, and the expense of turning Petey into a soldier might not be worth it. It's not clear that similar things are true in the case of Iraq.
If your support of a war hinges on whether it's you or others who will be paying the costs, that's a criticizably selfish basis for policy preferences. To put it another way -- because of your skill set, it may be the case that the war effort doesn't need you. But suppose it turned out that your skill set turned out to be useful to the war effort, and you weren't doing cancer research or anything that would generate greater benefit for the world than joining the war. Would you sign up? If not, and you still support the war, you're doing something wrong.
Anent the debate about whether the chickenhawk failure to enlist vs. the chickenhawks policy erorrs, I think that there really is no argument. They're both reasons why the chickenhawks are resgusting. Their comic a priori wankery. Their lack of personal connection to the consequences. Those are just some of the reasons. We shouldn't forget their willingness to rhetorically firebomb opponents. Their winking at manipulation of evidence prior to the war. Their willingness to sit quietly by while Iraq was looted of billions of dollars during the CPA days. (And let's not forget the sordid bozos who themselves profited by the looting of Iraq during the CPA days. But at least they had a pressing reason to keep quiet: avoiding jail time and/or having the graft spigot turned off.) The chickenhawk's willingness to condone specious torture. Their willingness to chuck away habeus corpus. Oh, my. There are just so many reasons why your garden variety chickenhawk is the most disgusting political animal since 50s-60s racists. No need to fight over just 2.
There is an interesting contrast to here in Canada, where the military recruitment ads go out of their way to imply the possibility (even likelihood) of serving in Afghanistan.
This is despite the fact that there's considerable (and increasing) public discussion here as to the future of the Canadian mission in Afghanistan and as to whether causualties have reached unacceptable levels.
These are good points. One of the reasons the army has been struggling in Iraq is that the ordinary soldiers, the midlevel officers, and probably also the generals have literally no idea what they are supposed to accomplish. The administration changes the reasons why we invaded something like every six months. So the army by default adopted the mission of staying in Iraq but keeping casualties low, which means in practice we still have bases there but the rest of the country is going to pieces.
Matt clearly is NOT making a Chicken Hawk argument. The argument seems to be (and I agree) that the vast majority of the American public doesn't think this War is so important that they're willing to personally sacrifice for it. This was actually fairly obvious (to me) in 2002-2003. This was a problem, because it meant that it would be hard to sustain a serious investment.
If Kosovo and Afghanistan had required a similar commitment, then it would have been questionable to start those wars when the commitment was not present. Kosovo clearly did not require the same commitment. Afghanistan is actually a much harder call, but there was a lot of evidence that the commitment was there - because it was directly linked to the war against Al Qaeda. This is blurred today because the War with Iraq has drawn attention away from Afghanistan AND most people enrolling know they are more likely to end up in Iraq.
Matt's argument has nothing to do with Chicken Hawk stuff, because it is equally viable against someone who served in WWII and racked up a bunch of medals. The point is that one should not support a War which the American people are insufficiently committed to. If you think they should be, you should convince them. But no one is even trying to do that. No one is calling for the level of service that will probably be required. Notice that McCain is not telling people that they should serve, and he is not urging parents to ask their children to serve. No one is doing that. People did that all the time in the past.
Aside from lack of commitment (resulting from a failure of political leadership), this also suggests that no one thinks Iraq is really as important as these other wars (it obviously isn't). But that means a lot of the rehetoric is clearly over-heated.
Keqrops: on the other hand, British armed forces ads have for as long as I can remember (I'm a bit older than Matt) downplayed the warfare aspects of the military and emphasised the training/self-esteem/belonging aspects (the Army's current slogan is "Forward as one"). I'm too young to remember what they were like during the Falklands War, but they may well have been more explicitly warlike then.
i was watching football yesterday and saw an ad for the air force and thought the same thing.
i also was struck by the fact that the air force was doing any advertising at all. it seems to me that the "growth" area of the military necessarily, given our current predicament, would have to be in branches where the recruits would be out there on foot, or at least supporting those who were. given of how limited efficacy our airpower is in fighting our current conflicts, it just seems like the military branches would prioritize recruiting in the areas where it seems people are needed most.
I also seem to remember that even when I was a youngish person (think fun in South America, rather than Europe as in MY's examples), military recruitment ads were all about how proud you would make your parents by joining. Now the message seems to virtually always be "Your parents won't want you to join but try to convince them anyway". The one exception I can think of is the "Maybe now your cold and distant father will have some kind of respect for you."
Being an ubergeek, I spent some of my Washington vacation getaway at the National Archives, and in the back of one of the exhibitions is a little piece devoted to recruiting propaganda. The switch over to skills-based recruiting instead of mission-based recruiting struck me as occuring sometime in the early 60s. Another interesting contrast is the victory bond drives of World War II versus the complete lack of any such spirit of public financing now. Definitely a topic worth some solid historical research.
We have to assume that the Army's marketing people know what they're doing these days. And there professional judgment is that the Iraq War isn't like that.
I'm sure they do know what they are doing, but your mistake is in thinking the marketing people have last say. The only professional judgement they have to make is how best to implement the client's desires. The client in this case being the top brass and, thus, the Bush administration.
I work, tangentally, in advertising. I've seen way, way too many great ideas mangled into stupidity by clients who wouldn't know how to sell candy to their mothers.
I don't know that the military (I am thinking particularly of the Army here) recruitment advertisers DO know what they are doing. Come on, "An Army of One"? That's got to be the stupidest slogan ever.
My personal favorite is that Special Forces ad that shows a man in camo on a hillside overlooking (watching) "the enemy/terrorists", with the chiron that says things like "You had enough supplies for 2 days...it's now day 5...Are you ready?" Oh yeah, Uncle Sam, sign me UP. I feel confident, having seen this ad, that the folks at the Pentagon and CentCom really have fully mastered that whole logistical conundrum of keeping the "warfighter" well-supplied. Therefore I will be much better able to expend my energy in ways that will enable me to accomplish my mission (and hopefully return in one piece), instead of having to risk my life by leaving my concealed position to find a bug or some bark to eat. Not to mention finding ways to keep myself hydrated here on this sunsoaked hillside. Yep. I'm THERE.
OK, so I'm bitter that my beloved Cadidiots lost last weekend.
thank you
thank you
thank you
thank you
mirc
mirç
mırc
mırç
mircturk
turkmirc
mirc indir
mirc yukle
mirch
mırch
mirc turk
turk mirc
mırcturk
turkmırc
mırc turk
turk mırc
turkiyemirc
türkiyemirc
turkiye mirc
türkiye mirc
mircturkiye
mirctürkiye
mirc turkiye
mircturk
turkmırc
muhabbet
forum
forum
turkforum
turkiyeforum
mirc
turkmirc
toplist
site ekle
pagerank
turkmirc
turkforum
sohbet
chat
sohbet odaları
bedava sohbet
bedava chat
türk
karar
komik video
kurtlar vadisi pusu
aşk şiirleri
bol sohbet
cinsel sohbet
sohbet
sohbet yerleri
bedava oyun
Bol Sohbet
chat
chat
sohbet
sohbet
seviyeli sohbet
göçmen sohbet
mynet sohbet
islam sohbet
yazılı sohbet
yazgülü sohbet
hollanda sohbet
bg sohbet
dost sohbet
arkadaş sohbet
bayan arkadaş sohbet
kızlarla sohbet
avrupa sohbet
alem sohbet
sohpet sohbet
cinsel sohbet
ingiltere sohbet
liseli kizlar
msn nickler
saç ekimi
sağlık bilgisi
mirc inndir
film inndir
sdadasda
Post A Comment