You are on page 1of 4

In a recent article, Titled, Lying and Dying, Missy Comley Beattie suggests that if

only military recruiters would fully disclose the lies perpetrated by the Bush
Administration, potential recruits would make far more informed decisions,
resulting in far fewer additions to the combat forces.

This writer holds a quite different view than does Ms. Beattie. There are a number of
problems with her proposed solution, making its implementation a forlorn fantasy,
impossible to achieve.

Army recruiters are first and foremost, true believers. They are career NCOs (Non-
Commissioned Officers), all with a minimum rank of Sergeant First Class. Invariably
they have had several combat deployments. Whatever political opinions they may
hold, any public policy criticism is certain career ending behavior (perhaps only
running a close second to having a relationship with one’s Commanding Officer’s
underage daughter!)

Whatever criticism one may have of military effectiveness, efficiency, or
intelligence, there is one thing the Department of Defense does exceedingly well. It
operates a marketing/public relations machine that might well engender the envy
of any private sector company.

Beyond TV ads advertising the “opportunities” offered by the Army, special
appearances by combat veterans are designed to motivate and co-opt the interest
of potential recruits As one example, the “Why I Serve” program is a careful appeal
to the protection of personal family, and the camaraderie of one’s military family.
The comments of one of the participants leaves no question as to the focus of this

“’My biggest reason for serving is my family,’ said MacDonald,
a combat medic who returned in 2006 from a deployment to
Iraq. ‘I looked at my family, and I realized that I want them and
their way of life to be protected,’ he said. ‘And one of the only
ways to do that is to go overseas and take the fight to the
enemy who are perfectly willing to come here and kill
themselves just to kill an American. … It requires some
sacrifice, but I am willing to do that.’”

America’s Army provides a sanitized view of combat that offers the immature the
ultimate pain–free virtual opportunity to “kill people and break things.”

“’America’s Army,’ offers a range of games that kids can
download or play online. Although the games are violent, with
plenty of opportunities to shoot and blow things up, they avoid
graphic images of death or other ugliness of war, offering
instead a sanitized, Tom Clancy version of fantasy combat.”
In the end, it is not the PR, not the advertising, not the computer games. nor any of
the other varied recruiting techniques employed by the Defense Department.

Rather, it is the gullible readiness of the targeted group – young adult men and
women – to uncritically accept all of the promised opportunities as accurate and
truthful, while rejecting the more probable threats to health, and life itself.

Regardless of the portrait painted by recruiters, can potential recruits be so unaware
of the increased deployment time, and the ugly conditions that exist in a combat
situation? Even were recruiters to disclose all of the ugly lies, misrepresentations,
and distortions engaged in by Bush, Cheney, et al, would this information dissuade
those who choose this career?

The answer would seem to be that the “truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the
truth,” would have little effect on the number added to the military each year. This
view is readily understood after reading this description of adolescent risk taking:

“The socioemotional system, which processes social and
emotional information, becomes very active during puberty
allowing adolescents to become more easily aroused and
experience more intense emotion, and to become more
sensitive to social influence. Conversely, says Steinberg, the
cognitive-control system is the part of the brain that regulates
behavior and makes the ultimate decisions, but is still
maturing during adolescence and into a person's mid-20s at

The ideal recruitment target can be typically described as an adolescent male
endeavoring to satisfy his ever present need for thrill-seeking, risk-taking,
adrenaline producing behavior. Military service additionally provides both peer and
adult community approval and support. Coupled with a frequent lack of a respected
male role to help guide and place limits on impulsive, self-destructive behavior, the
successfully recruited trainee resembles nothing so closely as the “groomed target”
of the sexual predator.

For those who may find the above to be an insult to the courage, commitment and
driving sense of duty to country and comrades alike, be assured it does not. Rather,
it is a critique of the essential slavery under which the military “volunteer” is placed
once having accepted employment as a member of the United States Military. He
must go where sent, do anything assigned, accept any environment, allow himself
to be placed in harm’s way, with no option to withdraw from such assignments until
his employers allow it. In fact, even after having left active duty, as a member of the
military reserve, he can be recalled at the whim of the Federal Government.

For those who choose to perform their civic duty as first responders to natural
disasters, through membership in their state National Guard, they can be
Federalized, placed in an active combat environment, and ripped from their homes,
jobs, and families for whatever period of time the government deems necessary.

The soldier relinquishes his Constitutional rights during his service with the military,
under the draconian provisions of the United States Code of Military Justice (UCMJ).
Here are a couple of items, illustrative of the surrender of personal rights to which
all member of the military must acquiesce. These behaviors, engaged in by a
civilian, at worst case, might result in loss of employment. However, under military
law each can result in imprisonment:

Article 86—Absence without leave
“Any member of the armed forces who, without authority— (1)
fails to go to his appointed place of duty at the time
prescribed; (2) goes from that place; or (3) absents himself or
remains absent from his unit, organization, or place of duty at
which he is required to be at the time prescribed; shall be
punished as a court-martial may direct.” Depending on the
duration of the absence, maximum punishment can include
forfeiture of all pay and benefits, Dishonorable Discharge, and
most importantly, up to 18 months in a Federal Prison!
Article 89—Disrespect toward a superior commissioned officer
“Any person subject to this chapter who behaves with
disrespect toward his superior commissioned officer shall be
punished as a court-martial may direct.”
This behavior is defined by the following behaviors: 1) That the
accused did or omitted certain acts or used certain language
to or concerning a certain commissioned officer; (2) That such
behavior or language was directed toward that officer; (3) That
the officer toward whom the acts, omissions, or words were
directed was the superior commissioned officer of the
accused; (4) That the accused then knew that the
commissioned officer toward whom the acts, omissions, or
words were directed was the accused’s superior commissioned
officer; and (5) That, under the circumstances, the behavior or
language was disrespectful to that commissioned officer.
Maximum punishment can include: Bad-conduct discharge,
for feit ure of all p ay and allo wance s, and
confinement f or 1 y ear .
This is neither an argument for nor against the provisions of UCMJ. Rather the
failure of the recruitment process to inform potential trainees of all of the negatives,
potentially consequential to signing a largely inescapable commitment to a
dangerous and inflexible employer, appears to this writer to be an egregious breach
of a most fundamental ethical concept applied to the citizen vis-à-vis his
government.That concept is tha t of inf ormed consen t, to employment or
circumstances putting the individual in danger, at economic risk, of unknown
duration, etc.
Quite frankly, the nuances of why we are fighting which enemy pale before this
deliberate “Seduction of the Innocent,” achieved through planful omission of risks
and costs associated with military membership, vs. the offered benefits dangled
before wide-eyed, willing victims.