Cyberstalking the Recruitable Teen
by
Tom Engelhardt
by Tom Engelhardt
At some level,
the situation is simple enough. As retired Lt. Col. Charles A. Krohn,
former Army deputy chief of public affairs at the Pentagon and in
Baghdad, put it recently in the
Washington Post, the Bush administration has "basically
committed most of the Army's active forces (including much of the
National Guard), rotating them to the point of exhaustion." Eric
Schmitt and David S Cloud, in a front-page story in the Monday New
York Times (Part-Time
Forces on Active Duty Decline Steeply) sum up part of the problem
this way:
"The
Army says it has found ways to handle the dwindling pool of reservists
eligible to fill the support jobs [in Iraq], but some members of
Congress, senior retired Army officers and federal investigators
are less sanguine, warning that barring a reduction in the Pentagon's
requirement to supply 160,000 forces in Iraq and Afghanistan, or
a change in its mobilization policy, the Army will exhaust the supply
of soldiers in critical specialties.
"'By next
fall, we'll have expended our ability to use National Guard brigades
as one of the principal forces,' said Gen. Barry McCaffrey, a
retired four-star Army commander who was dispatched to Iraq last
month to assess the operation. ‘We're reaching the bottom of the
barrel.'"
All of this
has come in the course of fighting two small, ugly, colonial-style
wars. And just because Iraq in particular is increasingly, in Krohn's
phrase, a "sustained and unpopular war," refilling the ranks has
proved no small problem for the Pentagon, which has recently found
itself scraping the bottom of that recruitment barrel in all sorts
of ways. This may sooner or later result in what Krohn calls a "hollow
army." Add to this, the near-guaranteed loss of much of what's left
of the none-too-impressive "coalition" in Iraq in the next year
the Italians announced their first withdrawal of forces this
week (to begin in September), the Brits are planning a major drawdown
relatively soon, the stay of the Japanese troops (already largely
locked inside their base in southern Iraq) is in question
and the Bush administration is soon likely to find itself, like
the cheese of children's song, standing very much alone in its mission,
with a major domestic and international recruitment crisis on its
hands.
In fact, we
may be watching a new phenomenon: withdrawal by military overstretch.
Now, thanks to one
of those documents that seem to leak constantly from crucial
file drawers in England these days a memo written by British
Defense Minister John Reid we know that not just the Brits,
but the Pentagon has been seriously considering a major draw-down
of forces in Iraq by early 2006, a near halving of American troop
strength there. According
to the Washington Post, "The [British] paper, which is
marked ‘Secret UK Eyes Only,' said ‘emerging U.S. plans assume
that 14 out of 18 provinces could be handed over to Iraqi control
by early 2006,' allowing a reduction in overall U.S.-led forces
in Iraq to 66,000 troops… The undated memo, which was reported in
the newspaper The Mail on Sunday, stated that ‘current U.S.
political military thinking is still evolving. But there is a strong
U.S. military desire for significant force reductions to bring relief
to overall U.S. commitment levels.'" Of course, given that it's
Iraq we're talking about, between planning document and reality
there are likely to be many
pitfalls.
And the "withdrawal"
is conceptual as well. The American imperial mission is visibly
buckling under the strain. (The 19th century Brits must be turning
over in their graves as American power crumbles under the weight
of small wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.) Until recently, the Pentagon,
in its congressionally mandated Quadrennial Defense Review, has
stuck to a two-war model of global dominance our military
should, in essence, be able to mount a decisive invasion of Iraq
and fight a second major campaign elsewhere on the planet almost
as decisively at more or less the same moment (while still being
capable of defending what is now commonly referred to as "the homeland").
Just last week, however, Thom Shanker and Eric Schmitt of the New
York Times reported (Pentagon
Weighs Strategy Change to Deter Terror) that the "Pentagon's
most senior planners" were challenging that model in fierce internal
debates and were opting instead for being prepared to wage but a
single invasion-of-Iraq-style war combined with smaller counterinsurgency
operations and a bolstering of domestic anti-terrorism defenses.
As Fred Kaplan recently commented in Slate on-line (The
Doctrine Gap), this will probably make no actual difference
in the size, shape, or staggering cost of our military. But it is
significant nonetheless. It represents a downsizing of ambitions,
what the ancient Chinese might have called "the rectification of
names" or the bringing of the naming of things back into
line with reality.
And inside
the Pentagon that reality couldn't be clearer right now. After all,
with the civilian leadership of the Bush administration proving
itself almost incapable of finding willing natives out there in
the imperium to fight its wars for it, military representatives
have been discovering in the last year that the natives at home
are restless as well. The services have responded to this situation
by trolling desperately for future troops, thinking
about a draft, and, as we know from recent news reports, starting
to cut endless corners. Recruiters, for instance, preying on the
supposed naïveté and susceptibility to bullying tactics of adolescents,
have been discovered instructing teens in lying
to their parents, forging documents, and beating the Army's
drug-test system. When all else failed, jail time seems to have
been a threat of choice. Interestingly, some of those teens have
fought back, going public with a spate of scandalous revelations
that forced
a one-day "values
stand-down" during which the military's recruiting standards
were to be reviewed.
But, as Dr.
Seuss might have said, that is not all… oh no, that is not all.
As Nick Turse shows below, the military has ramped up its operations
not only out there in the real world, but in the ether of the Internet
where that handsome, friendly civilian you might just happen to
run across may turn out to be none other than your local recruitment
officer on the prowl. ~ Tom
An
Army of (No) One: An
Inside Look at the Military's Internet Recruiting War
By Nick
Turse
It's been
a tough year for the U.S. military. But you wouldn't know it from
the Internet, now increasingly packed with slick, non-military looking
websites of every sort that are lying in wait for curious teens
(or their exasperated parents) who might be surfing by. On the ground,
the military may be bogged down in a seemingly interminable mission
that was supposedly "accomplished"
back on May 1, 2003, but on the Web it's still a be-all-that-you-can-be
world of advanced career choices, peaceful pursuits, and risk-free
excitement.
While there
has been a wave of news reports recently on the Pentagon's problems
putting together an all-volunteer
military, or even a functioning
officer corps, from an increasingly reluctant public, military
officials are ahead of the media in one regard. They know where
the future troops they need are. Hint: They're not reading
newspapers or watching the nightly prime-time news, but they are
surfing the web, looking for entertainment, information, fun, and
perhaps even a future.
In addition
to raising the maximum
enlistment age, no longer dismissing
new recruits out of hand for "drug abuse, alcohol, poor fitness
and pregnancy," allowing those with criminal
records in, and employing such measures as hefty
$20,000 sign-up bonuses (with talk of proposed future bonuses
of up to $40,000, along with $50,000 worth of "mortgage assistance")
to coerce the cash-strapped to enlist in the all-volunteer
military, one of the military's favorite methods of bolstering the
rolls is targeting the young specifically teens to
fill the ranks.
What the military
truly values is green teens. Not surprisingly, the Pentagon pays
companies
like Teenage Research
Unlimited (TRU), which claims it offers its "clients virtually
unlimited methods for researching teens," to get inside kids' heads.
It was also recently revealed that the Department of Defense (DoD),
with the aid of a private marketing firm, BeNow,
has created a database
of twelve million youngsters, some only 16 years of age, as part
of a program to identify potential recruits. Armed with "names,
birth dates, addresses, Social Security numbers, individuals' e-mail
addresses, ethnicity, telephone numbers, students' grade-point averages,
field of academic study and other data," the Pentagon now has far
better ways and means of accurately targeting teens.
(Military)
Culture JAMRS
BeNow and
TRU, however, are just two of a number of private contractors working
through JAMRS
the Pentagon's "program for joint marketing communications
and market research and studies" to fill the ranks of our
increasingly-less-eager-to-volunteer military. JAMRS claims that
it's only developing "public programs [to] help broaden people's
understanding of Military Service as a career option." However,
it also hires firms to engage in all sorts of not-for-public-consumption
studies that are meant to "help bolster the effectiveness of all
the Services' recruiting and retention efforts." Put another way,
behind the scenes the military is in a frantic search for weak points
in the public's growing resistance to joining the armed services.
Some of this is impossible to learn about because access to the
studies via the JAMRS web portal is restricted. Should you visit
and inquire about examining their research, you are told in no uncertain
terms that "access is currently limited to certain types of users"
none of which are you.
What we do
know, however, is that JAMRS is currently focusing on the following
areas of interest
in an attempt to bolster the all-volunteer military:
-
*Hispanic
Barriers to Enlistment: a project to "identify the factors
contributing to under-representation of Hispanic youth among
military accessions" and "inform future strategies for increasing
Hispanic representation among the branches of the Military."
-
*College Drop Outs/Stop
Outs Study: a project "aimed to gain a better understanding
of what drives college students to… ‘drop out' and determine
how the Services can capitalize on this group of individuals
(ages 1824)."
-
*Mothers'
Attitude Study: "This study gauges the target audience's
(270 mothers of 10th- and 11th-grade youth) attitudes toward
the Military and enlistment."
During the
Vietnam War, Hispanics took disproportionate numbers of casualties
and similar
disparities have been reported
in Iraq. JAMRS, apparently, is looking to make certain that
this military tradition is maintained. Additionally, eyebrows ought
to be raised over a Pentagon that is looking at ways to influence
the mothers of teens to send their sons and daughters off to war
and at a military eager to study what it takes to get kids to "drop
out" of school and how the military might then scoop them up. Perhaps
the most intriguing line of research, however, is the "Moral Waiver
Study" whose seemingly benign goal is "to better define relationships
between pre-Service behaviors and subsequent Service success." What
the JAMRS informational page doesn't make clear, but what might
be better explained in the password-protected section of the site,
is that a "moral character waiver" is the means by which potential
recruits with criminal records are allowed to enlist in the U.S.
military.
Future
Shock
Another of
JAMRS' partners is Mullen Advertising which "works with JAMRS on
an array of marketing communications, planning, and strategic initiatives.
This work includes public-facing, influencer-focused joint offline
and online advertising campaigns." One Mullen effort is the very
unmilitary-sounding MyFuture.com.
It's a slick website with information on such topics as living on
your own, writing a cover letter, or finding a job and includes
tips on dressing for success. ("Take extra time to look great.")
Without the usual tell-tale ".mil" domain name, MyFuture offers
what seems like civilian career advice (albeit with some military
images sprinkled throughout). You can, for instance, take its Work
Interest Quiz in order to discover if you should "go to college
or look for a job." However, the more you explore, the more you
see that the site is really about steering youngsters towards the
armed forces. For example, when you take that quiz, you are prompted
to ask your school guidance counselor "about taking the ASVAB Career
Exploration Program if you'd like to know more about your aptitudes,
values, and interests…" Not mentioned is that the ASVAB is actually
the Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery a test developed
during the Vietnam War as "the
admissions and placement test for the US military."
When I took
the quiz I was told: "Based on your responses to the activities
listed, here are the work styles that may be appropriate for you:
Investigative [and] Artistic." To follow up on my investigative
aptitude, MyFuture.com offered eight civilian career suggestions,
ranging from veterinarian to meteorologist. It also recommended
eight military counterparts including Law Enforcement and Security
Specialist. For my artistic aptitude, MyFuture suggested that I
"may like activities that: ‘Allow [me] to be creative [and] Let
[me] work according to [my] own rules.'" Apparently, there are eight
military jobs that will allow me to stretch my imagination and do
just what I want, artistically speaking. Who knew, for example,
that the perfect move for an artistic, freethinker would be joining
an organization based on authority and conformity and then
becoming a "Food Service Specialist"?
MyFuture.com
claims that its "website is provided as a public service," while
the JAMRS site refers to it as a "public site for potential military
candidates to discover more about career opportunities appropriate
for their interests." Of course, it's really an effort to recruit
kids.
Tomorrow's
Military, Today?
Another Mullen
Advertising-created site is aimed at a different population. Like
MyFuture, Today'sMilitary.com
is a polished-looking site that lacks a ".mil" in its web address,
but instead of targeting teens, the website announces that it "seeks
to educate parents and other adults about the opportunities and
benefits available to young people in the Military today." In JAMRS-speak
that means it's a "public site targeted at influencers."
Today'sMilitary.com
is filled with information on financial incentives available to
those who join the military and webpages devoted to "what it's like"
to be in the armed forces and how the military can "turn young diamonds
in the rough into the finest force on the face of the earth." We
learn that Army basic training is "[m]ore than just pushups and
mess halls." In fact, quite the opposite of a torture test, it's
actually a "nine-week-long journey of self-discovery." The Marines'
boot camp comes across as an even more routine, though less introspective,
affair with nary a mention of its rigors aside from "a final endurance
test of teamwork." Scanning through the pages, we even learn that
life in the military is not just "exciting, challenging and hugely
rewarding," but that in their off-time, military folk "go for walks…
and they even shop for antiques" (which may account for some
of the antiquities that seem to go missing from Iraq).
Today's Military
even takes the time to dispel "myths" like: "People
in the Military are not compensated as well as private sector
workers." According to Today's Military they are just don't
tell it to the Marines who recently
roughed up their highly-paid mercenary counterparts in Iraq.
"One Marine gets me on the ground and puts his knee in my back.
Then I hear another Marine say, ‘How does it feel to make that contractor
money now?'" So reported a former Marine now working in the war
zone as a "private security contractor." Mercenaries in Iraq generally
rake in $100,000 to $200,000 per year. Earlier this year, under
pressure from Congress, the
Pentagon announced that it, too, would start paying out this
type of cash. One caveat you've got to be dead.
Such unpleasantries
as death and combat go largely unmentioned on Today'sMilitary.com
(or on any of the other sites mentioned in this article). In fact,
the only such allusion is on a webpage that coaches parents on ways
to push their children to consider the military. It instructs parents
to "[e]ncourage them with subtle hints" to foster conversation on
the subject and offers talking points to refute the possible trepidations
of your own little potential enlistee about the armed forces. Among
the "tough questions" a child might raise is a simple fact, driven
home nightly on the news: "It's dangerous." Today's Military offers
the following answer:
"There's
no doubt that a military career isn't for everyone. But you and
your young person may be surprised to learn that over 80% of military
jobs are in non-combat operations… A military career is often what
you make of it."
Tell that
to non-combat troops like Jessica Lynch, the late Corporal Holly
Charette (seen here
delivering mail for the Marines) and her fellow fourteen
casualties from a recent suicide car-bomb attack on a Marine
Corps Civil Affairs team in Fallujah, or the large number of other
troops in support roles who have found themselves directly in harm's
way. As a Voice
of America article recently put it, "Increasingly, there is
a fine line between combat and non-combat jobs, especially in a
place like Iraq, where there is no front line, and any unit can
find itself in a firefight at any moment."
Assault
and (Aptitude) Battery
Maj. Gen.
Michael Rochelle, head of the Army Recruiting Command, recently
stated, "Having
access to 17- to 24-year-olds is very key to us. We would hope
that every high school administrator would provide those lists [of
student phone numbers and addresses] to us. They're terribly important
for what we're trying to do." In the wake of the revelation of the
Pentagon's massive new database of America's youth, Chief
Pentagon spokesman Lawrence Di Rita claimed, "We are trying
to use appropriate methods to make ourselves competitive in the
marketplace for these kids who have a lot of choices." But as Nation
magazine editor Katrina vanden Heuvel recently wrote in her Editor's
Cut blog, it isn't just choices keeping the kids away:
"The
debacle in Iraq has made recruiting an impossibly difficult job
and recruiters are sinking to new lows in the face of growing pressure
to fulfill monthly quotas as well as fierce opposition from parents
who don't support the President's botched Iraq war mission."
One of the
military's new lows brings us back to the subject of ASVAB and the
methods of the Vietnam-era. Faced then with the need for expendable
troops, Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara instituted an unholy
coupling of the War on Poverty and the War in Vietnam Project
100,000. Project 100,000 called for the military, each year, to
admit into service 100,000 men who had failed its qualifying exam.
The program claimed that it would outfit those who failed to meet
mental standards, men McNamara called the "subterranean poor," with
an education and training that would be useful upon their return
to civilian life. Instead of acquiring skills useful for the civilian
job market, however, "McNamara's moron corps," as they came to be
known within the military, were trained for combat at markedly elevated
levels, were disproportionately sent to Vietnam, and had double
the death rate of American forces as a whole.
Today, a desperate
Pentagon seems to be following a strikingly similar path. As Eric
Schmitt of the New York Times has written, the Army is increasingly
turning to high-school dropouts, has already almost doubled last
year's number of recruits scoring in the lowest level on the Armed
Services Vocational Aptitude Battery and is "accepting
hundreds of recruits in recent months who would have been rejected
a year ago." Meanwhile, those who happen upon the Pentagon's ASVAB
website will find another slick design, with few military trappings,
no ".mil" web-address, and lots of objective career counseling.
You have to troll around the site to discover in the fine print
that it's offered as a "public service by the U.S. Department of
Defense, Defense Manpower Data Center."
Like Today'sMilitary.com,
the ASVAB site makes a pitch to parents, exhorting them to "[e]ncourage
your teen to take the ASVAB." It also tries to influence teachers
to "[i]ntegrat[e] the ASVAB Program Into the Classroom," even recommending
that portions be "assigned as homework" to students.
Strapped
for bodies, the Pentagon is putting on a full court press to fill
the ranks. Its new package of promotion includes: big signing bonuses
and drastically lowered standards; NASCAR,
professional bull-riding, and Arena Football sponsorships; video
games that double as recruiting tools; TV commercials that drip
with seductive scenes of military glory or feature The Apprentice
host Donald
Trump; disingenuous career counseling websites; and an
integrated "joint marketing communications and market research and
studies" program actively engaged in measures to target Hispanics,
"drop outs," and those with criminal records for military service.
The Department of Defense, in short, is pulling out all the stops,
sparing no expense, and spending at least $16,000
in promotional costs alone for each single soldier signed up.
Obviously
the Pentagon wants recruits badly and cash-strapped teens represent
one of the best chances to fill uniforms. The military clearly thinks
that America's youth couldn't really pass your basic intelligence
test. Its websites downplay danger and its slick TV commercials
show bloodless scenes of adventure and heroism that don't square
with images (and news) now coming home from Iraq to anybody's neighborhood.
From hiccupping recruitment rates, it's clear, however, that America's
teens already know these ads and websites are missing a few critical
elements scenes of American troops acting as foreign occupiers,
killing civilians, torturing detainees, fanning the flames of discontent,
and failing to deliver basic safety or security not just for Iraqis
but for their own troops.
July
13, 2005
Tom
Engelhardt [send him mail]
is editor of TomDispatch.com,
a project of the Nation
Institute. He
is the author of several books, including The
Last Days of Publishing: A Novel and The
End of Victory Culture. Nick Turse works in the Department
of Epidemiology at Columbia University. He writes for the Los
Angeles Times, the Village Voice and regularly for Tomdispatch
on the military-corporate complex and the homeland security state.
Copyright
© 2005 Nick Turse
Tom
Engelhardt Archives
|