Culture » April 18, 2006 » Web Only

Just Say No to Uncle Sam (cont’d)

But no place is quite as fertile for recruiters as public schools. Under No Child Left Behind, public schools have to turn over their students’ private information or they risk losing federal funds. Students can “opt-out” but most schools don’t publicize this option and recruiters find other ways of getting in.

The 2004 guidebook for high school recruiters offers detailed instructions on how to gain the trust of students and teachers:

• “Know your student influencers. Students such as class officers, newspaper and yearbook editors, and athletes can help build interest in the Army among the student body.”

• “Attend athletic events at the HS. Make sure you wear your uniform.”

• “Deliver donuts and coffee for the faculty once a month.

• “Coordinate with the homecoming committee to get involved with the parade.”

• “Get involved with the local Boy Scouts … Many scouts are HS students and potential enlistees or student influencers.”

• “Offer to be a timekeeper at football games.”

• “Contact the HS athletic director and arrange for an exhibition basketball game between the faculty and Army recruiters.”

Recruiters don’t put that time and energy into every school. They go to schools with students from poor and working class backgrounds, where young people want a way out but don’t see any.

The National Priorities Project found that in 2004 almost two-thirds of recruits were from counties with median household incomes below the U.S. median. Seventy-five percent of the top 20 counties with the highest number of recruits had higher poverty rates than the national average.

The New York Civil Liberties Union publicized training materials from the Defense Department’s Joint Advertising and Marketing Research and Studies Web site, which explicitly targets black and Latino youth. One section details the obstacles of recruiting black teens, such as widespread opposition to the war in the black community and well-known hip-hop artists speaking out against the war.

The marketing report states:

• Because of this influence, the Hip-Hop community’s negative views about the war in Iraq are also influencing their thinking on this subject.

• As a result, there is a need for the military to enlist other influencers and employ the best direct marketing vehicles to engage prospects and help counteract this view.

There may be no better example of recruiters’ exploitation of hopelessness than Hurricane Katrina. In the aftermath, the Wall Street Journal reported, military recruiters were in the Astrodome, urging folks who had lost everything to sign up.

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?

And once you sign up, recruiters’ seductive promises often evaporate.

The DOD Enlistment/Reenlistment contract says: “Laws and regulations that govern military personnel may change without notice to me. Such changes may affect my status, pay, allowances, benefits and responsibilities.”

Kim’s son didn’t expect to see combat when he signed up. The recruiter told him he could pick a job in accounting, but once he was in, the only jobs open to him were in infantry. He was sent to Iraq.

”My son, Josh, was lied to by the recruiters— by the government—from beginning to end,” Kim told me at an anti-war protest in Harlem. “My son doesn’t understand why we’re there. He tells me, ‘I’m only 19. I haven’t lived yet and I’m already facing the possibility I might not come home.”’

Countless recruits who were told they would never see combat are shipped to Iraq. This includes people who signed up for the National Guard —so-called “weekend warriors” who are supposed to work at home, helping with disaster relief.

As of October 2005, about one-quarter of American soldiers’ deaths in Iraq have been National Guard and reservists. The Guard and Reserves have not been so widely used in combat since World War II.

And what about those promises of college tuition and job training?

Well, as Vice President Dick Cheney reportedly said, “The reason to have a military is to be prepared to fight and win wars…it’s not a jobs program.”

Just to qualify for the Montgomery GI Bill soldiers have to pay $100 a month for a year—and that is still no guarantee they’ll have their college tuition covered. If a soldier serves at least three years and is honorably discharged then he or she is eligible to receive up to $1034 a month for up to thirty-six months—a total of $37,224. As of 2005, four years for an in-state student at Rutgers University costs $72,540. For an in-state student at Indiana University, four years cost $50,912 to $57,104.”

According to Tod Ensign’s book, America’s Military Today, 15 percent of those who use the GI Bill earn four-year college degrees. To qualify for that $50,000 splattered on the Army ads, recruits have to sign up for infantry, armor or artillery—which greatly diminishes their chances of making it to college in one piece, or at all.

And the recruiters mocked me for being scared of going to Iraq?

As of this writing, more than 2000 American soldiers have been killed in Iraq and more than 30,000 have been injured.

The New England Journal of Medicine reported that about one in six soldiers returning from Iraq experience mental health problems. Military families are often abandoned by the Army and forced to fight for proper medical care, as well as deal with the financial pressures of deployment, extended tours, and illness. And don’t look to the Bush administration for help. They’ve cut funding to VA hospitals and soldiers’ combat pay.

But in the recruiter’s shiny office there was no mention of death or injury or killing. Instead, they offered me a way out of a dead-end job and overpriced New York rents. For every problem I had, they had a solution.

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

• Help In These Times publish more articles like this. Donate today!
• Subscribe today and save 40% 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 1:51 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 4:57 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 1:36 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 1:50 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