NYT: Desire to serve, not economy, fuels military recruiting
Here's some news that may shock you: new military recruits are signing up in droves because they actually want to serve their country. According to a Sept. 5 article in the Dallas Morning News that also ran in the New York Times, a poll of new recruits shows their number one reason for signing up is "service to country," not "job training" or "educational benefits" as it had been in recent years. Curtis Gilroy, the Department of Defense's director of recruiting, called these results surprising.
"When jobs are scarce in the civilian sector, the military is relatively attractive as a post-high school option for young people," he said.
Frankly, I'm surprised they're surprised.
In my work as an Army journalist and in research for my upcoming book "Why They Serve: The True Stories Behind the Americans Serving in the Global War on Terrorism," I've had the privilege of interviewing more service members than I can count. I've talked to Army drill sergeants, Navy SEALs, Coast Guard law enforcement teams and wide-eyed, baby-faced 18-year-olds in basic training. And not once has anyone told me they signed up simply because they couldn't find a job. In fact, their reasons for joining are as varied as they are (and no, they're not all from the South). Some have told me they chose to serve because of a renewed sense of patriotism sparked by 9/11. Some have told me they love the camaraderie, the structure, and the commitment to getting the job done right. Some, like 19-year-old Beatrice Mahoney in the article, feel strongly about carrying on a family tradition. The daughter of a retired Marine Corps master sergeant, Mahoney is enlisting in the Marine Corps with her boyfriend. Both of them are unemployed, but that's not their main reason for joining, Mahoney said.
"This is pretty much the only thing I know, and I love it to death," she said. "Our drive to be in the military pushed us together. I really think this is going to make us stronger."
All four of the military's main branches are far exceeding their recruiting goals for the first time, according to the article. But it's not because young people are viewing the military as an alternative to unemployment or flipping burgers. The one common thread in all of the responses I've gotten from service members about why they joined is a desire to serve their country. Sure, the bleak economy may have played a role in their decision, but the stakes involved in joining the military are awfully high these days. We all know the odds are pretty darn good that a new recruit will deploy to Iraq or Afghanistan at some point, and if you're truly just looking for a paycheck, facing enemy fire is a tall order. Military service is not for everyone, and if all you're after is an alternative to sitting on the couch, you'll probably be more likely to do something less hazardous and life-changing.
New recruits aren't choosing the military out of desperation, either. They're getting record-high scores on the ASVAB, the military entrance exam, and 99 percent of them have a high school diploma, according to the article. They have the smarts and education to potentially do something else, but have chosen service instead--and that's a powerful message to the rest of us.
While the economic downturn is not solely responsible for the up tick in recruiting, what it has done is provide a window of opportunity for those who had been considering joining the military. One young woman I met had been a high-powered New York real estate agent when the housing collapse hit at the end of 2007. She'd always wondered what it would be like to serve in the Army and to have a career with a bit more meaning than just showing West Side apartments all day. Since her business was flailing anyway, she joined the National Guard in 2008 and couldn't have been happier with her decision.
The economy has also served as a powerful retention tool. I know many service members with families to support who have served for eight, ten, or twelve years, and have been considering making a career change, but who have decided that the outside economic situation is just too risky.
As Staff Sgt. Marcus Ochoa, a recruiter in Nagadoches, Texas, puts it in the article, joining the military is an entire way of life that requires sacrifice and change. Fortunately, Ochoa says that most new recruits seem to get that.
"There are niceties--education, travel, job security, those things," he said. "But they shouldn't be the reason people join. Do it because you want to serve your country. That's the right reason."
I couldn't have put it better myself.
Photo credit: U.S. Army


Salon.com
Comments
R
Bonnie--Agree to disagree?
http://www.okinawajapanforum.com/
A simple search for why did you join the military will reveal that the two primary answers are:
a. I hated my hometown, and
b. There were no other jobs.
Service to country ranks way down the list.
Reality: Military Repeatedly Fails to Meet Recruiting Goals (but the DoD Cleverly Cooks the Books to Claim Success)
Monday 04 January 2010
"On December 28, The Christian Science Monitor published an op-ed that was misleading - so misleading it was pure Pentagon propaganda.
The CSM column by Jamie Holmes falsely claimed that, "For the first time since the establishment of all-volunteer forces in 1973, the US military has met all of its recruiting goals." Not only is this wrong, it ignores a mountain of evidence clearly available in the press showing the military remains in crisis.
The lead sentence is so far from reality that I stayed late at my office at Veterans for Common Sense on New Year's Eve to respond with facts. We progressives need to kill the myth of "successful" military recruiting dreamed up by someone who must read military press releases and then regurgitate them whole. The national recruiting failure is so bad, and the pressure on recruiters so overwhelming, that Houston, Texas, recently saw a cluster of recruiter suicides.
In reality, the military failed to reach new enlistment goals for the past decade. The military accomplished this by manipulating, and thereby significantly lowering, the number of new recruits needed to fill the ranks. The military accomplished this voodoo bookkeeping by relying upon more than 500,000 individual National Guard and Reserve service members to fill recruiting shortages. The true number is even higher because many Guard and Reserve activated and deployed twice or more.
While Holmes claims "success" for military recruiting, the Pentagon's top leaders actually cheated and lied with statistics by using "stop loss," the horrible policy that forcibly kept nearly 200,000 additional service members on active duty months after their enlistment contract was over, thus temporarily inflating the number of troops in the military, and reducing the number of new recruits needed."
recruitment
If my html fails, here's the URL:
http://www.truth-out.org/104096
Sorry to be a little late, just got home.
Rated with hugs.
Mark In Japan's post has some goof info. I would also mention the rise in recruitment of immigrants as a pathway to citizenship has increased numbers and the decreased standards that have allowed more recruits with previous criminal records to be allowed to enlist.
As an Army journalist, perhaps you are not the best source to get truthful answers from new recruits as to why they joined. Your interview with Mahoney seems to be after she has been in for awhile rather than after just signing up. It might be more illuminating to ask brand new recruits or prospective recruits why they are joining.
As far as the tall order of military service, I'm sure the recruiters do a good job of not fully explaining the likelihood of coming home in a body bag or with a brain injury, or missing limbs, or PTSD, or having to serve beyond their commitment due to stop loss. They probably don't mention the increased likelihood of suicide either.
Rated.
The point being: Claiming that it's service to country for one's motivation doesn't diminish the obvious rationale of a bad economy being up there as a primary reason for joining. When you're in the service, you no longer think about it as the main reason because you NOW have a job. So you are free to start thinking about personal motivations for why you are proud of your military service. And there's nothing wrong with that. It's better than the draft era where people were thrown into the service and wanted nothing more than to get out.
But a survey like this is not a vindication for those who want to push out the economy as a motivating factor for people joining. If this survey was asked at recruiting stations, the chances are you'd get a lot different answers than if you asked people who no longer have to look for a job.
What this says to me is a good thing. People are proud of the job they are doing in the military. And that's great. But I think too many people are trying to push a political brownie point into the issue as well (and that's on both sides). Because I promise you this, once this becomes a common belief amongst those who are policy makers, the miltary becomes less important to them when they are needing to "support" the military. Deep in their mind, they'll think to themselves, why should I allocate funding for them? They're happy already. They're already thinking that with the mantra of "well, they should just be happy they have a job" which is the one that's been bandied about in political circles under the breaths of a lot of politicians who don't want to sacrifice their own economic projects for military support.
Becky Boop: Thanks!
Markinjapan: You're entitled to your opinion, but whether or not the DoD cooked the books on recruitment numbers is missing the point of my post, IMHO.
Linda: Thanks!
Alaska Progressive: Thanks for your comment. My point here is not that the economy is not a factor at all in why people join, but that, contrary to many peoples' opinions, it's not necessarily the biggest or only factor. There's a big element of pride that goes into it, too. Yes, I am an Army journalist, but as I mentioned in the post, I did not conduct the interviews with Mahoney, nor did I compile the facts referenced here. I am citing interviews and facts from an article that appeared in the Dallas Morning News and the NYT.
Bernadine: Thanks to your son's friend for serving.
Black Jack Davy: Yep, I'm focusing my book on active-duty vets of the GWOT, so I suppose in that way it's already historically framed. I started slogging through Red and Black years ago in college, and somehow never finished...one of these days, I'll pick it back up.
Scylla: Thank you for your enthusiasm!
Duane: First off, thank you for your service. Your comment was very well-thought out, and you've got a point--the feeling of being connected to something bigger does seem to grow over time, at least with many of the service members I know. But again, my point here is not that the economy doesn't factor in at all. It's just not necessarily the biggest factor. And I sure hope you're wrong about the funding.
I was in the military for a long time and, while the strictures of the service were a seeming disconnect for a person like me, what I do miss the most is that soldiers have a concept of duty to something beyond themselves.
Lew