Culture » April 18, 2006 » Web Only

Just Say No to Uncle Sam

By Elizabeth Weill-Greenberg

To keep the war in Iraq going, the military needs soldiers, lots and lots of them. So they’ve underwritten a multi-billion dollar advertising campaign, selling adventure, money, education, camaraderie, purpose and honor. The ads play relentlessly, often interrupting a vacuous episode of some dating show I’m enjoying on MTV. They all offer variations on a theme: a young Black kid tells his mom he found a way to pay for college; a man starts a new job using the skills he learned in the Army; a father tells his pudgy uniformed son he never shook his hand and looked him in the eye before. Fade to black … the U.S. Army.

What unfolds in my edited collection, 10 Excellent Reasons Not to Join the Military, are stories by military parents, soldiers, veterans, lawyers and journalists about what doesn’t make it into those ads. They describe the real life of a soldier—complete with lifelong injuries, inadequate care, insanity and death. And if the Bush administration follows through with its plans for a nuclear air strike against Iran, as Seymour Hersh recently reported in the New Yorker, American soldiers may soon find themselves enmeshed in a worldwide war with endless military retaliations.

This one little book may not be able to topple the machine it’s up against. But the billions spent on advertising campaigns can’t change one essential truth: The military is about war.

Here is just one reason not to join the military that I can offer from my own experience with that machine: you might be lied to.

The Hard Sell

“It’s either jail or the military,” said Jeannel Bishop, a senior at Brooklyn’s South Shore High School and counter-recruitment activist. Many students at her school think enlisting is their best option.

When Navy recruiters visited South Shore, students were allowed to leave class to meet with them. Bishop brought pamphlets and confronted the recruiters about their assurances of tuition and training. She pointed out to them and other students nearby that getting college money was a much more complicated and uncertain process.

“I was taking over their whole show,” Bishop said. “[The recruiters] were amazed.”

Three students who had been “pumped up about the military” had second thoughts after Bishop spoke. It took just a little information for them to have doubts, she said.

After speaking with several students like Bishop and American soldiers, I decided to see recruiters’ tactics first-hand. When I posed as a potential recruit, I stayed as close to the truth as possible.

I told them I was temping as a secretary in a doctor’s office for $8.00 an hour. I had no health insurance, and I was about $60,000 in debt from student loans. All of this was true. Some small lies were necessary, though. I said I was 21 (I was 25 at the time) and had completed three years of college (I have a master’s degree). Most importantly, the recruiters knew that I, like so many of their young targets, had financial troubles.

When I met with the recruiters in their downtown Manhattan office, they kept holding out their golden ring: money.

Sgt. Preto sat to my right, Sgt. Mack to my left [Editor’s Note: the names of these recruiters have been changed]. Preto barraged me with promises that the Army would make me financially secure. It would cancel my debt. If I went back to school, the Army would pay 100 percent of my tuition. I would work until 4:30 and go to school at night. Full medical and dental … Thirty days paid vacation … Unlimited sick days … Live rent free.

He pulled out a chart divided into a hundred little boxes. He pointed to the numbers in the boxes and showed how my pay would go up and up and up. I’d earn about $1,400 a month, with all living expenses covered. His friend was earning $60,000-$70,000 after he left the Army. He said soldiers had received a twenty percent raise since Bush was in office.

“What other job would promise you’d be debt free, fully insured, and making $1,400 a month?” he asked.

But when I hesitated, he asked why.

“I’m just really concerned about going into combat.”

“So you’re scared?” he teased. “That’s the first thing you mentioned, ‘I don’t want to go to combat.’ “

He pointed to Sgt. Mack: “He went for five months.” And then at a recruiter across the room: “He went for a year. They went. They’re OK.”

The mocking continued. He asked if I had an 8:00 curfew in high school. He said I was probably the sort of kid who was locked in my house on a Friday night.

They asked me a few other questions about my limited athletic abilities and drug history. If asked if I had ever smoked pot, lie and say no, they instructed.

As I sat in the office, several teenagers who looked about 18 or 19 walked through. All were either black or Latino. Each was greeted warmly and with affection.

Finally, it was time to meet Sgt. Suarez—the “closer.” He was a smiling, flamboyant, well-groomed man with carefully gelled hair and a weak handshake. He told me he grew up in Puerto Rico in a blue-collar household. He now had a college degree, he said, pulling out a white binder and flipping to a plastic-covered diploma. He had two houses. He had traveled all over the world.

At one point Suarez asked me, in classic car salesman mode, “What can I do to get your name on this [agreement]?” Like all salespeople, recruiters are under intense pressure to meet their quotas. The 2006 Defense Authorization bill proposes a $1,000 finder’s fee for soldiers who successfully refer new recruits to military recruiters.

He told me I could choose any job I wanted, provided their test qualified me. If I didn’t get the job I wanted, he would get on the phone and make sure I did. I could travel to Germany, Hawaii, Alaska.

Wait. Stop right there. Would recruiters really need to lie, harass and push their way into public schools if they just gave out all-expense paid trips to Hawaii and gobs of college money?

The truth is most people who sign up for the military aren’t going to Germany, Hawaii or Alaska. They’re going to Iraq. The Los Angeles Times reported that half the recruits going through Fort Benning in Georgia will be deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan 30 days after finishing basic training. The rest will likely go during their first enlistment

I told Suarez that my mom was worried about my going into combat.

“You could get shot—God forbid—in front of your apartment. More people were killed in New York last week than Iraq,” he said repeating one of the recruiters’ favorite mantras.

Recruiters will do or say just about anything to convince young people that the Army is not about war. No, the military isn’t all guns and tears and pain. It’s hip, cool, rebellious even. (My recruiter told me to “cut the umbilical cord” when I said I didn’t think my mom would approve.)

Recruiters will prey on any opening they have to young people— including military-sponsored video games and rock concerts, soliciting outside malls, accessing private information through testing, and offering free iTunes, as well as by exploiting kids’ boredom and frustrations.

• Help In These Times publish more articles like this. Donate today!
• Subscribe today and save 46% off the newsstand price!

• subscribe to print magazine

• stay in touch with our email newsletter

  Subscribe to our regular weekly e-mail newsletter. It's packed with updates on recent and upcoming stories, events, campaigns and things every progressive should be informed about.

   

• email this article to a friend

  Your Name Your Email Recipient Email

  Personal message Thought you might be interested in this article from In These Times.

   

  Please help us prevent spam by verifying the word you see in the image above

  Send to multiple recipients. Just separate each email address with a comma.

• Reader Comments

  “The military is about war. “

  Well the author undestands this. Maybe we should let the recruits know this as well (it is a closely guarded secret?).

  “I was about $60,000 in debt from student loans. ...  and had completed three years of college “

  Given such irresponsible spending habits, i would recommend that the (fictitious) person do something drastic. Joining up might be a good solution. Both to obtain money and to - hopefully - learn fiscal responsibility.

  “When I met with the recruiters in their downtown Manhattan office, they kept holding out their golden ring: money. “

  Employers should not be allowed to entice potential employees with cash. It is, after all, rather crass. (I wonder, do other employers use this despicable strategy?)

  “Would recruiters really need to lie, harass and push their way into public schools “

  They should not. They should merely be invited in.

  “These recruiters offer what society doesn’t ­money for college, a promising future and a fulfilling career. Why is it that lower income people have to risk their lives for these opportunities? “

  Given that there is no draft, no one *has* to risk their lives. The quoted statistics in the article make it seem pretty likely to me that we get recruits from all social strata, even if it is somewhat/slightly slanted towards the poor. (Should people “have” to risk their lives in other dangerous professions? Coal miners or cab drivers for instance?)

  I suppose if you dislike the military you should speak out as the author has and continues to do. Truth (or lack of) need not be an impediment to such speaking out (oh my, both sides lie for the “good”). But remember - without the military the US would surely fall. Both due to the US being so very wealthy (who doesn’t want to steal from the rich?) and also due to those “bad” people who simply desire power over others.

  “Needless to say, the truth is not an effective recruiting tool.”

  I think the “problem” is more likely that - for many - it in fact is.

  Posted by wolf on Apr 19, 2006 at 2:51 PM

  i belive that war is a way to settle a problem. even though it is violent it is better it fight than to quarl

  im a stupid 18 yr old so i probably dont make scence, but im gonna join in a couple of days so im goin with sam

  Posted by onnersbaba12 on Apr 19, 2006 at 5:57 PM

  Wolf

  We seem to take opposite sides on almost every debate. ;)

  Employers should not be allowed to entice potential employees with cash. It is, after all, rather crass. (I wonder, do other employers use this despicable strategy?)

  There is a major difference between the Military and say, Acme Inc. offering a given compensation package.  If you were to sign on with Acme, Inc. for position X and they paid you less than was promised, you could simply quit.  The Military, on the other hand, cannot be ditched so easily.  Once they’ve got your signature on your enlistment agreement…

  The focus of the article is that recruitment officers promise compensation packages that often do not ever materialize once the recruit has signed on.  They’re quick to rifle off the top-tier benefits at a potential recruit, often failing to mention any of the stipulations, with full knowledge that many candidates will not qualify for most of them.  Many low-income kids, desperate to succeed somehow, are eager to believe that a military officer would represent the offers honestly.  Many are wrong.

  When I was nearing High-School graduation, I looked into enlisting as a possible option.  Wanting to compare the various branches, not only to get multiple offers, but to fact check the various recruiting officers against each other, I visited two Army stations, one Air-Force, and one National Guard.  Each one gave me a similar speech, though the Air-Force was lower pressure (I’d imagine theat the Air-Force’s quotas are smaller,) and, after listening to the promises and speeches of each recruiter I agreed to enlist with one condition:

  The promises of college money, compensation package, and job would need to be added to an amendment of my enlistment agreement, and that the amendment would need to include a recourse from changes to the amended sections.

  Both Army recruiters flatly refused, acting very offended that I would even suggest their word wasn’t gold.  The Air-Force officer told me plainly that he didn’t have the authority to do so, but would see if it could be done.  The National Guardsman said he would have it amended, and call me when the updated document was ready for my signature.  He never called.  The Air-Force recruiter called me a week later, saying that his superiors had refused to give me an amended enlistment agreement.

  Quick to promise the world, but never in writing.

  “I was about $60,000 in debt from student loans…”
  “Given such irresponsible spending habits, i would recommend that the (fictitious) person do something drastic. Joining up might be a good solution. Both to obtain money and to - hopefully - learn fiscal responsibility.

  Really, $60,000 in student loans is not an abnormally high amount.  The school my sister currently attends is around $20,000 a year, and even with a partial scholarship she’ll still have almost $50,000 in school-loan debt by the time she graduates.  If a low-income student wants to attend the best schools in the country, their debt could easily reach six-digit figures.  Harvard, for example, is somewhere in the realm of $38,000 a year, over $150,000 for a four year degree.

  ——————————— ;——

  I’ve got no problem with military recruiters visiting schools, running recruiting drives, and the like, but they should not be allowed to promise so much, and deliver so little, to people who are quick to be taken in by promises of a better life.

  Posted by Harrower on Apr 23, 2006 at 2:36 PM

  Harrower - Given your experience, i wonder if there is a way to see if the military is giving significant amounts of false information to its potential recruits (either intentially or not). If so, i would suggest that rather than attempting to ban recruiters to campuses, the schools should offer a workshop on what to ask them. That is, to help those who do not have the wisdom you had at the end of high school.

  The author represented herself as only 3 years into a degree, yet with $60K debt. This seems very very high to me. I would strongly discourage my children from such a large financial commitment, unless they thought that they might be making big bucks when they got out of school (much more than the military would offer). (While Havard is much more expensive than a state school, i doubt it is worth the differential for most people.)

  The military clearly should be held accountable for their promises. Especially given that, as you say, once you sign the contract, you are in for the long haul (and even possibly longer).

  Posted by wolf on Apr 24, 2006 at 2:50 PM

• register a new account »Posting Security

  To participate in our forums, please register for a free account.

  Username Password

    Remember me
  

  Retreive lost password »

Also by Elizabeth Weill-Greenberg

• Protest? What protest?
  Amid crystal chandeliers and filet mignon appetizers, South Carolina’s delegates munched and mingled… morePosted on August 31, 2004