In my local paper this morning (The News-Gazette, Sun., June 5, 2005) is an article about Army, Army Reserve, and Army National Guard recruitment woes, followed by a small box entitled, "Experts: If you want them, tell them what they’re fighting for."  The News-Gazette online doesn’t have either article available, but a Google search turned up the above named piece here at the SunHerald.com. 

I want to comment on this piece particularly, but in general on the current situation the military finds itself in.  But first a disclosure from our sponsor:  I was an Army Recruiter in the early 1990s in Green Bay, WI.  This was not by choice; just as most who serve as recruiters did not choose to do so.

Throughout my comments please keep in mind that I understand and respect the situation that recruiters as individual service members find themselves in today.  My time was only a little easier being shortly after the 1st Gulf War.  This is not an easy assignment and it ruins many an inidividual’s career (case in point, mine, among 1000s of others).

First, I’ll take on the comments of one Frank Luntz, whose comments are the basis of the sidebar article that I have serious issues with.  Mr. Luntz is labelled as a corporate communications specialist, political pollster, and Republican campaign adviser.  Addressing the recruiting crisis, he is quoted as saying:

I would make my focus and my message be one of respect and appreciation.  There are no jobs that Americans would appreciate as much as this one, and that appreciation would follow you throughout your whole life.

A bit later he goes on to say:

I would probably spend more time linking the heroism of the people who are there now to what they are trying to protect.  I would try to communicate the importance of needing heroes.

There is another quote from one Patricia Alvey of SMU that links war, heroes, and the ‘right thing to do’ but it is just a restatement of the other a**hole’s comments.

My 1st comment is, "WTF?"  "Respect and appreciation?"  Give me a freakin’ break!  That’s why Memorial Day is just another reason for most retailers to have sales, why almost no one celebrates Veterans Day, why even fewer know when or what Armed Forces Day is.

Maybe these damn wealthy Republicans and the Wal-Mart world people who follow their rhetoric to their own demise think that they respect and appreciate folks in the military but that’s just a joke; a very deadly joke for those in the service.  [And yes, I realize that I painted with a very broad brush stroke there.  For that I apologize.  I know that not all Republicans or people who shop at Wal-Mart are like this.]

And I’m here to tell you that as a veteran that "respect and appreciation" is few and far between.  I’m just lucky that I’m reasonably healthy and only minimally emotionally crippled from my 20+ years of service.

Let’s take a look at this "appreciation and respect" for a moment:

Pat Tillman’s death by fratricide, and the shameless use the Army made of him by turning him into a false hero.  If you don’t think this report at a blog is credible, check it out. [Just click through to the WaPo article linked.]  It has been reported, buried on back pages and so on, but reported nonetheless in a few mainstream sources.  I’ll get back to this whole "hero" thing in a bit.

If there is so much "appreciation and respect" by our society for those who serve then why does No Child Left Behind mandate that schools must turn over contact information on all of their students to military recruiting?  Oh, didn’t know about that little provision in the act, huh?

Low-level enlisted servicemembers bearing all the criminal burden for the torture and abuse of prisoners.  How many investigations, at what waste of our tax dollars, have now been "conducted" that have cleared all officers and civilian leaders of the military?  Many, many sources are available on this topic.

Ads to convince parents and other influencers?  Convince Cindy Sheehan first as to why her son had to die.

VA benefits are cut repeatedly while they can’t keep up with the demand generated by the current wars we’re waging, much less the past ones.  Illinois, probably the best state to be a veteran in [a sincere thank-you fellow Illinoisans from this vet], has the 3rd largest population of homeless vets, almost 20,000, according to the previous Chicago Sun-Times article.

From Postmodern War by Victor Davis Hanson:

In short, today’s Western soldier must accept not just the burden that
he has far more to lose—material pleasure, affluence, and a culturally
based sense of individual worth—than his adversary, not just that his
death or injury will be seen as argument against his mission, not just
that his very conversation may be filmed and recorded for political
purposes, but also that his killing of those trying to kill him will be
used to denigrate both his mission and his morality.

Disclosure 2: I have a son currently serving in the Army.  He has been to Iraq once already and faces the propsect of returning; this has caused me great anguish and has had an impact on our communicating. 

I do my best not to be guilty of the last clause in the above excerpt from Hanson.  But, maybe if we had more information from our government and the media it would be easier for us all to disambiguate the ‘legitimate’ killing and inevitable moral lapses inherent in war from those that are not inherent, nor acceptable.

While not directly addressing the issue of "respect and appreciation" see this amazing article on "The Normalization of War."  It has wonderful sections on the "The New Aesthetic of War," " The Moral Superiority of the Soldier," and "The President as Warlord."  Required reading.

In the right circumstances, for the right cause, it now turned out, war
could actually offer an attractive option–cost-effective, humane, even
thrilling. Indeed, as the Anglo-American race to Baghdad conclusively
demonstrated in the spring of 2003, in the eyes of many, war has once
again become a grand pageant, performance art, or a perhaps temporary
diversion from the ennui and boring routine of everyday life. As one
observer noted with approval, "public enthusiasm for the whiz-bang
technology of the U.S. military" had become "almost boyish."
Reinforcing this enthusiasm was the expectation that the great majority
of Americans could count on being able to enjoy this new type of war
from a safe distance. (From The New Aesthetic of War section.)

Since the end of the Cold War, opinion polls surveying public attitudes
toward national institutions have regularly ranked the armed services
first. While confidence in the executive branch, the Congress, the
media, and even organized religion is diminishing, confidence in the
military continues to climb. Otherwise acutely wary of having their
pockets picked, Americans count on men and women in uniform to do the
right thing in the right way for the right reasons. Americans fearful
that the rest of society may be teetering on the brink of moral
collapse console themselves with the thought that the armed services
remain a repository of traditional values and old-fashioned virtue.

. . .

Soldiers have tended to concur with this evaluation of their own moral
superiority. In a 2003 survey of military personnel, "two-thirds [of
those polled] said they think military members have higher moral
standards than the nation they serve. … Once in the military, many
said, members are wrapped in a culture that values honor and morality."
Such attitudes leave even some senior officers more than a little
uncomfortable. Noting with regret that "the armed forces are no longer
representative of the people they serve," retired Adm. Stanley Arthur
has expressed concern that "more and more, enlisted as well as officers
are beginning to feel that they are special, better than the society
they serve." Such tendencies, concluded Arthur, are "not healthy in an
armed force serving a democracy."

In public life today, paying homage to those in uniform has become
obligatory and the one unforgivable sin is to be found guilty of
failing to "support the troops." In the realm of partisan politics, the
political right has shown considerable skill in exploiting this
dynamic, shamelessly pandering to the military itself and by extension
to those members of the public laboring under the misconception, a
residue from Vietnam, that the armed services are under siege from a
rabidly anti-military left. (Above 3 paragraphs from The Moral Superiority… section.)

By the way, this is the bio of the author of this insightful article; clearly not a raging leftist:

Andrew J. Bacevich is professor of international relations and
director of the Center for International Relations at Boston
University. A graduate of West Point and a Vietnam veteran, he has a
doctorate in history from Princeton and was a Bush Fellow at the
American Academy in Berlin. He is the author of several books,
including the just published "The New American Militarism, How Americans Are Seduced by War."

War as aesthetic experience—for those who are "able to enjoy this new type of war
from a safe distance."  To learn about the aestheticizing of our society, and the danger therefrom, read Boorstin, Ellul, Kierkegaard, Postman, Adorno, and so many others.  Bread and circuses people, bread and circuses.  If you see war in this way then you need to turn off your TV and take a long, hard look into your dark, dark soul.  I guarantee you that those forced to fight in the Circus Maximus did not see it as an aesthetic experience.

That paragraph on the polls is the sort of thing that Frank Luntz (pollster), who started this whole post for me this morning, is referring to.  But polls and reality are not necessarily connected.  Americans may report that is how they feel, but it is certainly not how they do feel.  Otherwise, they would be demanding to see images of coffins, interviews with crippled vets, they would be voting our governement "leaders" who are cutting VA benefits and are guilty of other abuses of servicemembers out of office, they would be insisting that our government representatives send their own children off to serve, or that at least they had served.  It is an entirely aesthetic morality—moralism—not true morality in any (true) sense of the word.  See Stivers’ The Culture of Cynicism: American Morality in Decline.  Or, if you can’t be bothered with an entire book, leave a comment and I’ll provide references to an article or 2 or 3 that makes the point a little quicker.  I certainly wouldn’t want to distract you from Desperate Housewives or something.

I don’t have much to say about the paragraph on servicemembers themselves buying into the moral superiority argument, except that it is a very dangerous attitude for a military force to have, and that I too am somewhat guilty.  But for me, it is more an after the fact issue.  I do my best to eradicate it, but somedays I feel a little more entitled to my opinions on the situation due to my service.  In my heart of hearts I know that isn’t true and that it is a complete violation of everything I served those years for, but nonetheless it is there on occasion. 

What I would like to comment on regarding that paragraph though, is the comment on how "the armed forces are no longer representative of the people they serve."  This is true, make no mistake.  I don’t have an article at hand, but do a little looking on your own and check out the demographics of today’s all volunteer force.  Show me the "respect and appreciation" in those demographics!  Oh, I’m sorry, rich, white people certainly "respect" the poor and minorities dying for their freedoms.  I forget sometimes, sorry.

How much "respect and appreciation" is inherent in a forced, obligatory homage?

See here for a balanced view of what "Support Our Troops" should mean.

I know it’s been a bit, so here’s the 2nd comment by Luntz that I want to address:

I would probably spend more time linking the heroism of
the people who are there now to what they are trying to protect.  I
would try to communicate the importance of needing heroes.

"Heroism."  Wonderful word; used to mean something.  I will not dispute the need for heroes—but not like this guy means—real cultural heroes, not just heroes as propaganda.  Nowadays "hero" means athletes, entertainers, any other sort of pop culture icon, every single firefighter, police officer, or military member.  In other words, it means nothing except to the individual who has someone specific in mind as a "hero."  But words mean nothing when they have different meanings to each individual.  Let’s take a look at what the OED (2nd ed., 1989) says about "hero:"

1. Antiq. A name given (as in Homer) to men of superhuman strength, courage, or ability, favoured by the gods; at a later time regarded as intermediate between gods and men, and immortal.
  The later notion included men of renown supposed to be deified on account of great and
noble deeds, for which they were also venerated generally or locally; also demigods, said to be the offspring of a god or goddess and a human being; the two classes being to a great extent coincident.

2. A man distinguished by extraordinary valour and martial achievements; one who does brave or noble deeds; an illustrious warrior.

3. A man who exhibits extraordinary bravery, firmness, fortitude, or greatness of soul, in any course of action, or in connexion with any pursuit, work, or enterprise; a man admired and venerated for his achievements and noble qualities.

4. The man who forms the subject of an epic; the chief male personage in a poem, play, or story; he in whom the interest of the story or plot is centred.

[If you look up "heroine" you will get the feminine versions of the above.  I am not being discriminatory on the basis of gender here, only space.  Besides the word used in the media and popular culture is "hero" in the generic.]

I only included sense 1 so no one thought I was being disingenuous.  Clearly that is not what we mean when we call all servicemembers heroes.

Do I need to look up "distinguished," "extraordinary," "illustrious,"  or "greatness of soul" for you to show that senses 2 and 3 clearly cannot apply to every servicemember?

OK, we’re left with sense 4.  And I will grant, that if we want to define our world-wide military adventurism as the central plot of America’s late 20th and early 21st century "epic," then fine, I’ll concede.  BUT, while we can certainly do that, and I love a story as much as the next person, I refuse to define the situation as simply as "the subject of an epic!"  That is the way neo-cons think, not the way sane people think.

Many of our servicemembers, and firefighters, police officers, and other emergency service personnel, are truly heroes.  But in reality, we rarely know who they are.  They just go about their missions on a daily basis and on occasion rise to extraordinary heights in the service of those they serve.  But to claim that all are does a complete disservice to those who are.  It also leaves us open to lies such as the Pat Tillman story.  [Be sure to click through to the WaPo article.] Pat Tillman was not a hero; just another pawn, albeit an anomalous one, of the military-industrial-media complex.  Please do not understand me, I respect Pat Tillman, and I grieve mightily for his family.  But the Army used him as a poster boy, and then when he was killed by fratricide, they lied on multiple fronts to cover their asses.  Then in a move that was disrepectful to more than just Pat or his family, they turned him into a martyr for their cause.  Awarding him a Silver Star to cover your own asses is a denigration of all the previous "heroes" who have been awarded the Silver Star.  And I have no doubt that many of those were also awarded under questionable circumstances, but none were probably as unsavory as this case.

I’ve been at this for almost 3 hours now.  While I have plenty more to say, I need to go do some much needed cleaning of my apartment.  Maybe I should hold out for a "hero?"  I guarantee you that if you come do it for me I will extol your "greatness of soul" and "heroism" from the rooftop and even here publicly on this blog.  Of course, down in my soul and heart, I’ll know that you’re just a really nice person.