by Eric Martin
Brandon Friedman (whom I make a habit of reading on a regular basis) discusses the recent emergence of some less than ethical means that the US Army is using to bolster its sagging numbers. The latest measures involve using thinly veiled threats and intimidation to coerce inactive soldiers to reenlist (Along the lines of: "If you don't reenlist now with me, you could be more likely to get deployed in a combat situation..."). There is no merit to the assertions and insinuations, of course.
Keep in mind, Army recruiters are turning to these dubious methods after test standards have been lowered to dangerous levels, moral waivers have been issued with greater leniency, past misconduct has been increasingly overlooked, injuries/physical limitations discounted, bonuses raised and a host of other measures have been adopted to counter the effects of the Iraq war on enlistment/retention.
Remarkably, many war supporters elide the enormous strains on our military - to near breaking points for certain segments (Reserves, National Guard) - when discussing the "pros" of maintaining a rather large troop presence in Iraq for the next decade to 100 years. It is as if they view Iraq through a cost/benefit prism where the concrete and knowable costs (crippling at that) can be treated as non-existent in the pursuit of hoped for benefits that are, at best, highly improbable, and in an effort to stave off negative outcomes that are speculative.
Captain Brandon Friedman recently became personally acquainted with this new recruitment/retention method. Actually, it wasn't Friedman himself that was on the receiving end of these strong-arm tactics, but his mom. Amazing. We can do better.
Eric Martin,
thanks for pointing me to this. I've bookmarked that site. What an incredible post. I urge everyone to read it especially for the documentation at the end of just how prevalent these bogus threat tactics are. The army communications read like the military version of a Nigerian banker scam.
aimai
Posted by: aimai | June 03, 2008 at 12:08 PM
The army communications read like the military version of a Nigerian banker scam.
That made me laugh then frown.
Posted by: Eric Martin | June 03, 2008 at 12:11 PM
I read the piece. Recruiters being sleazy is nothing new, but threatening a officer's mom is a new low. I wonder what kind of pressures are being brought to bear on recruiters these days.
Hilzoy has pointed out the tendency among todays right wing to do benefit analysis for those things they want, and cost analysis for that which they don't.
Posted by: Frank | June 03, 2008 at 12:12 PM
Apparently, one third of the discretionary budget is not enough to purchase a military whose recruiters don't sound like Nigerian scammers. Does anyone know how much of the discretionary budget we'd have to devote to the military before we would no longer have to worry about soldiers getting lied to and harassed? Would that be one half? Maybe two thirds? Or is the sort of problem that we can only fix if we devote 90% of our budget to the military?
I'm always a little shocked at what "options" are not included in this military package we purchase given the price. I mean, I was really confused when I found out that the most primitive air defense and tracking wasn't included on 9/11, not even for the most densely populated area in the country.
Posted by: Turbulence | June 03, 2008 at 12:35 PM
I am not at all surprised. My boyfriend has received ever escallating "enticements" to return to service and his inactive reserve time has been over for over a year. He happened to get connected to a gunny he had known when he called the number on the recall notice. The gunny told him that his VA benefits (he is supposed to get 65% disability) had actually been frozen by them as payback for saying "NO THANK YOU".
Not sure how that can happen since the VA is totally separate. I wish I could write this off as paranoia but the hoops that the army and VA is making us jump through are unreal. And yes, his benefits were cut off almost a year ago and havent been reinstated and no one knows nothing about nothing. And dont get me started on treatment. "TREATMENT??? You actually expect the VA to remove the shrapnel from your body? HA!!!" 'severe to extreme' PTSD and they send him to an intern for treatment!
jen
Posted by: Jen Smith | June 03, 2008 at 12:40 PM
Now jen, to be fair, it is possible that the intern stayed at a Holiday Inn last night. That would have made a big difference.
Posted by: Turbulence | June 03, 2008 at 12:46 PM
LOL Turbulence - I dont know if she is old enough to stay by herself at a hotel! No degree, no military experience, never heard a shot fired - let alone one fired in anger. Yet given the power to ask "how he feels about" sniper kill XXX or doing the emergency tracheotomy on that soldier in Fallujah with his favorite pen...damn he misses that pen.
Posted by: Jen Smith | June 03, 2008 at 01:44 PM
Jen,
I am deeply ashamed that our country would treat people like your boyfriend in such a way. Makes me gnash my teeth in anger.
Posted by: Eric Martin | June 03, 2008 at 01:45 PM
Oh, people, people, do none of you understand the fiduciary responsibiliy these functionaries have to the God-almighty taxpayers? The taxpayers duly slpapped yellow ribbon decals on their gas-guzzlers - isn't that enough sacrifice? Doesn't that show their full and heartfelt support of the troops and veterans, not that any of the litter in back of the SUV will ever be in that position..............
Posted by: Jim | June 03, 2008 at 05:01 PM
"Keep in mind, Army recruiters are turning to these dubious methods after test standards have been lowered to dangerous levels, moral waivers have been issued with greater leniency, past misconduct has been increasingly overlooked, injuries/physical limitations discounted, bonuses raised and a host of other measures have been adopted to counter the effects of the Iraq war on enlistment/retention."
The Boot Camp Diet.
When will help be on the way?
Posted by: Gary Farber | June 03, 2008 at 05:11 PM
Jen: another citizen who wants to apologize to your boyfriend, and everyone like him.
I hate this stuff. I just hate it. We should do right by people, period.
Posted by: hilzoy | June 03, 2008 at 05:42 PM
"recent emergence"
No. It's not. Threatening to peel people off their unit and ship them someplace dangerous if they don't re-up isn't a "recent emergence" either. Nor is having it actually happen. It's at LEAST 3 years old.
Posted by: End(less)this War | June 03, 2008 at 10:31 PM