Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Newsvine
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiUrban Tool in Recruiting by the Army: An Arcade
PHILADELPHIA - Amid the last-minute shopping bustle, the voice in the Black Hawk helicopter simulator shouted with an urgency that exceeded even the holiday mall frenzy.
![[About 35 visitors have enlisted. (Jessica Kourkounis for The New York Times)
]](http://www.commondreams.org/files/article_images/recruitment-0105.jpg "recruitment-0105.jpg")
"Enemy right! Enemy right!"
Triggers squeezed. Pixels exploded. Shopping waited.
At the Franklin Mills mall here, past the Gap Outlet and the China Buddha Express, is a $13 million video arcade that the Army hopes will become a model for recruitment in urban areas, where the armed services typically have a hard time attracting recruits.
The Army Experience Center is a fitting counterpart to the retail experience: 14,500 square feet of mostly shoot-'em-up video games and three full-scale simulators, including an AH-64 Apache Longbow helicopter, an armed Humvee and a Black Hawk copter with M4 carbine assault rifles. For those who want to take the experience deeper, the center has 22 recruiters. Or for more immediate full-contact mayhem, there are the outlet stores.
The facility, which opened in August, is the first of its kind. It replaces five smaller recruitment stations in the Philadelphia area, at about the same annual operating cost, not counting the initial expenses, said Maj. Larry Dillard, the program manager. Philadelphia has been a particularly difficult area for recruitment.
The Army recruited 80,517 active personnel in the fiscal year that ended in October, slightly surpassing its goal of 80,000, though as in recent years it fell below its goal of having 90 percent of recruits be high school graduates.
In recent years the Army has tried a number of ways to increase enlistment, including home video games, direct marketing promotions, a stronger online presence and recruitment-themed music videos. In 2007 it added bonuses of up to $2,000 for Army reservists who signed up new recruits. Civil liberties groups have criticized the Pentagon for its efforts to reach high school students.
But while recruitment remains strong in rural areas where there are military bases, it is weak in cities like Philadelphia, Major Dillard said. "The question is, how can we get our stories out to urban centers where most of the population lives, but where we don't have a big presence?" he said. He added that the center did not recruit anyone under 17.
On a recent afternoon, about a dozen more-to-less-likely recruits stepped away from the mall's screaming markdowns to try the simulators and play free video games, including Madden football and Rainbow Six: Vegas.
Mikel Smith, 19, and Jovan McCreary, 21, sat at Alienware game stations, maneuvering the camouflaged antiterrorist troopers of Rainbow Six through a series of casinos under siege. Muzzles flared on screen; sounds burst in their headphones.
"We're just here to play the games," said Mr. Smith, who said he was not considering enlisting in the Army. At the sign-in desk, where visitors fill out an information sheets and receive bar-coded photo identification cards, he indicated that he did not want to be contacted by a recruiter.
Beside Mr. Smith, Mr. McCreary leaned back in his black mesh chair. "I got the same game at home, but it's better here," he said. He, too, was not interested in the Army Experience Center's other purposes. "We're going to college next year," he said.
First Sgt. Randy Jennings, the supervising officer on this day, said the center's intent was not just to recruit personnel, but also to inform young people about the Army, in an area where they have little contact with service members. Most recruits live near rural bases.
If the program is deemed a success, the Army might replicate it in other cities.
"We want to put people in the Army, but that's about our third priority," Sergeant Jennings said, gesturing to a kiosk with descriptions of 179 jobs in the Army, including details on salaries and benefits. "Most people think joining the Army means being a grunt, and that Iraq equals death. We try to show them that there's more to the Army than carrying a gun. If people come in here and they learn that but they don't join, that's O.K."
Most of the staff - both military and civilian - wore casual clothing; there was no hard sell. Conversations with recruiters might take place in an adjacent room or the central lounge area, where there were comfortable leather chairs and a soundtrack of Jane's Addiction and the Red Hot Chili Peppers. But on this afternoon, the only action was on the video games and simulators.
The three simulators play out missions to support the delivery of humanitarian aid in Iraq or Afghanistan; unlike in the video games, the participants do not come under fire.
In recent years, the Army has had great success with using video games like America's Army to attract recruits. But for the Army Experience Center, the results so far have been less than spectacular. Since it opened, about 35 visitors have enlisted. That is slightly below the previous recruitment rate at the five smaller stations, Sergeant Jennings said, at a time when the slumping economy would be expected to drive more people to enlist.
"We're not at the point where we can say this is an effective strategy," Major Dillard said, adding that the Army had not set a numerical threshold for success for the center.
"We won't be measured by the number of people we put in the Army," Sgt. Jennings said. "We're basically a learning lab for the military, a way for us to interact with kids and find out what they're interested in. People are going to join the Army, whether we had this or four or five recruitment stations."
At another video console, Graceson George, 29, a graduate student at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School in Chicago, led a squad of Army special forces through the battle zones of the game Ghost Recon.
He said that he was considering enlisting, but that he had spinal problems that might limit his ability to serve.
"I just wanted to see exactly what they provide," Mr. George said. "We got a briefing on what the Army is all about. It's a great experience serving this country, and it takes commitment and determination. They said there were other areas I can get involved. So I said, give me time."
Mr. George said he did not think the video game accurately conveyed the combat experience.
"In this one, you can die as much as you like, but in real war it's not possible," he said. "The reality of military service is beyond what you think. Here you can go back and replay, but in real life if you get shot you get shot. So it's an entertainment, but it makes you think."
He turned back to the combat on the screen. In the cocoon of the headphones, he did not hear the sound of prices hitting the floor.
76 Comments so far
Show Allnwfisher,
as jhc put it, it's called responsible parenting. people such as yourself are one of the major reasons our young, and now fat, are sent to war. it is disgusting to see, in this day of easily obtainable information, that you -and many others like you - would consider the military as an option for your very own child. "extremely intelligent" but not "academically inclined"? where lies the problem? of course, someone like you will blame his teachers/educators at his school.
maybe your son could get a job driving one of the army's star-spangled recruiting hummers that have been seen frequenting the poorer neighborhoods of major cities. who knows, it could even be his "best option".
Gee, how about we decrease military spending and don't send troops to kill people somewhere every other year so the military doesn't need as many people?
Works for me. We don't need to spend anywhere near as much as we are spending.
"Going into a high school to get recruits is not a good idea, using video games to recruit is also not a good idea. Joining the forces is not a freaking game, neither is fighting a war."
Total, total agreement.
But I also don't favour the draft as it's been practiced in the states in the past. There ought not to be any exemptions, if you don't want to kill fine, serve as a medic. If you are rich, too bad private. (you can buy silk boxers,
Total, total agreement.
"For me, the fact that there hasn't been any real call for a draft is a sure sign that this wot is not worth fighting."
I hadn't thought of that actually. Good point.
Iraq...should never have happened, wasn't worth all the lives and future damage. Wasn't any of our business and for me only a bunch of cowards that never saw a shoot fired like this group, would have rushed to war as they did.
Thanks very much for your thoughts on this.
""Mr. George said he did not think the video game accurately conveyed the combat experience.""
DUH! Ya think? This has got to be the most understated and at the same time most idiotic comment I've ever seen.
I find it difficult to understand why so many here don't seem to grasp the need to recruit for the armed services. Without a draft, they must recruit for volunteers like everyone else that wants to hire.
There are certainly some things like going into high schools that should be forbidden.
The only other choice would be a draft, which I do not favor...at all, at any time. Nor can I see why anyone else would.
This is not addressed to anyone that is foolish enough to advocate the abolution of our military, they simply don't live in the real world. But those that address the reality of the world we live in, I'd welcome your thoughts.
First, no war should be fought unless it is a "just" war. That term gets thrown around a lot, so let me offer a reference that is generally accepted as the best articulation of just-war principles: the 1983 document "The Challenge of Peace," by the United States Bishops Conference. A review of just-war principles will quickly confirm for any reader that the U.S. military has not fought a just war since WWII (and some will question whether our participation in that war was just, since the fire-bombing of cities, not to mention the A-bombs dropped on Japan, violate the principle of proportionate response).
Our military is increasingly deployed to protect natural resources around the globe and the safe passage of those resources to our consumer society. It has not played its (appropriate) role as our defense force in my lifetime. Those who join to "serve our country" are simply being duped into serving the military-industrial complex and multi-national corporations. In Iraq, simply put, it's blood for oil, and I would not have my son or daughter partake in that, though I would be proud if they served in a "just" cause.
As for a draft, well, I will admit I am unresolved. A truly just war would seem not to require a draft, since the justness of the war would be obvious and likely compel enlistment. On the other hand, a just war of significant proportions might require more soldiers than could be recruited, meaning either a draft or surrender. Some have argued that a draft NOW would focus more attention on the fact that we are not now fighting a just war, thus compelling the kind of resistance that eventually (with corporate capitulation) ended the war in Vietnam. Regardless, any kind of draft must be as fair as the war being fought is just. No "senator's son" should be exempt; only the unfit and COs (and I agree with hootowl that CO status should be conferred for secular ethical reasons, not just religious reasons).
No drasft. You are obviously too young to have faced one or to have left our country because of one.
Don't stress youtrself over "just" war so much. The only good war is the one thats not fought. "Those who join to "serve our country" are simply being duped into serving the military-industrial complex and multi-national corporations." Thats a statement of your ideology not a statement of fact. There have been hundreds of instances in which our military was engaged that were not what you claim. Aside from that fact, are you unaware that a nation must trade and protect her trade or die? Its not nearly as simple or as neat as you seem to be saying.
"A truly just war would seem not to require a draft, since the justness of the war would be obvious and likely compel enlistment"
I would say to you that most men in our country would serve if it was needed and willingly, but its not an easy decision, especially if there are men being allowed to defer service.
But before you mistake my meanings too much, I am not speaking in absolutes most of the time and parts of what you are saying are correct. Iraq is a good example. Afganistan is completely different though.
Yeah, I think we're drifting toward violent agreement. I get prickly, too, for I mean well in these posts and sometimes react less than thoughtfully when a challenge seems like a personal attack rather than a reasoned response.
The Vietnam war ended the year I turned eighteen, so I did not face a draft.
Afghanistan is different, as Lt. Erin Watada eloquently stated in his own defense. The problem with Afghanistan is that empires seem to die there, and we're in a heap of trouble already without adding that straw to the camel's back. If Afghanistan is necessary, even just (and I will evaluate wars against just war criteria), then a much broader coalition is clearly required. I don't think our country can bear the cost for long.
I was formulating an answer and just before posting lost my connection...GRR$#%^&* as a one finger typist, it will take me longer to respond. Thank you for the patience.
"The Vietnam war ended the year I turned eighteen, so I did not face a draft."
The only thing I can say about that is Thank God!
Watada was a volunteer, so I have no admiration for his last minute refusal to deploy with his men. Far different than the guys that went to Canada in my eyes.
But he has to live with his decision, not me...and yours and others opinon of him are just as valid as mine. I could nevber have deserted my men just before deployment, so my opinion is colored by my own morals. At least he stayed and faced the resuklts of his decision. Hard thing to get a handle on.
We promised the Afgans we would stay then we pulled out. Should we stay now and make good our earlier promise? Got me.
edit..."I don't think our country can bear the cost for long." I forgot to say...good point.
I believe the exposure of "globalism" for the lie that it was, the theft by our economic elites and the gutting of the middle class by all concerned is the thing that could restore our military to what it should be, remove bases we should have closed years ago, reindustralize our country and get us out of debt, both nationally and personally.
Thanks for YOUR patience! And courtesy. I realized after a couple false starts (when I acted like a jerk) that the only use in this blogging business is to try to open up to new and even opposing points of view. Posters who vent or scream or insult or rant are just wasting time, influencing nothing. You have given me things to think about, so thanks. Gotta go to work now...
P.S. I'm right beside you regarding your final paragraph above.
"I realized after a couple false starts (when I acted like a jerk)"
I didn't see any posting you made that was "acting like a jerk"....different opinions was all I saw.
"You have given me things to think about"
As did you. One sentence can lead to discovery of something you didn't know or provoke a different way of looking at something that can modify your opinion...
Pax
Hey you guys cut it out. Acting like jerk is MY job here.
-- ekaton aka d.k.shaw
That was funny, but not jerky. Try again!
LOL. Ask Thomas. He can verify.
-- ekaton aka d.k.shaw
No jerks in this bunch! Sorry EKATON (d.k), you're never even wrong except when you disagree with me. (llol)
I look forward to trading more ideas on some other thread somewhere down the line.
Our pleasure, I assure you.
How about replacing the standing army with a citizen militia as the founding fathers intended Thomas? And no that doesn't have to be a far right position as both Switzerland and Venezuela have citizen militias now. I also think any fighting force should be easily opted out of for people who opposed violence on either secular ethical or religious grounds.
Simply wouldn't work. We are not Switzerland. Nor would a citizen militia protect our country. There are troubled times coming and these fools (Rumsfield/Cheney) have hurt our military. Needlessly. We should be spending less, have more trained troops for it and close useless bases that are kept open because the countries they are in insist they be kept open.
I'm not sure where you got that about Venezuela but I can assure you they have a standing army and draft kids into it. Maybe they call it a "militia". But I can assure you that it is no militia. They aren't the best I've seen, but they are fairly well trained for South America.
"I also think any fighting force should be easily opted out of for people who opposed violence on either secular ethical or religious grounds."
Boy this is something I really, really agree with. With a volunteer force it wouldn't apply of course, but with ac draft, I think it would be best for everyone if a man doesn't want to serve he simply says I can't fight. I'd accept that singular statement.
For religious reasons, C.O., just plain coward, whatever. I think he should have the right to just say no, I won't serve my country...and that would be it. Better for him, better for the men that serve and better for our country.
Can you tell this is a matter I care a lot about? I got carried away...Thanks for your opinion.
An in essence militia based citizen defense and a stance of armed neutrality works pretty well for Switzerland, and not getting involved overseas keeps them out of a lot of useless trouble. IMO the 600 billion a year we spend on the military would be better spent on high speed rail, green energy research, national healthcare, and paying down the debt which say cutting 500 billion from the military budget would allow us to do and still spend as much per year on the miliraty as our second biggest competitor China Keep in mind too that an essence citizen guerilla movement in Iraq fought us the biggest army in the world to draw until we started paying off Sunnis in the puppet "Awakening Movement." Will they stay allied with us, and will Iraq's puppet government stand if we cut off the money spigot? I doubt it...
One more interesting fact did you know major bridges and other crucial infrastructure in Switzerland are pre wired with explosives to give the armed citizen resistance a better chance against invaders? THAT is what I call creative thinking.
Well, I'll answer. Yes, recruiting is necessary. But, I didn't need to be recruited when I joined the forces. Of course, at the time I joined the cold war was on, and even then it wasn't that likely I'd face combat in the way that people today are; I joined the navy not the army (my grandfather served in the army during both world wars, from what I knew of his time in service I thought the navy would be a much better option). I knew when I joined that if a real shooting war broke out between NATO and the Warsaw Pact it would end with mushroom clouds and I'd not likely know it had started.
Going into a high school to get recruits is not a good idea, using video games to recruit is also not a good idea. Joining the forces is not a freaking game, neither is fighting a war.
I favour using the draft when engaged in a war. Not this wot bushit, the current bush wars are fought for the corporate bottom line I think. But I also don't favour the draft as it's been practiced in the states in the past. There ought not to be any exemptions, if you don't want to kill fine, serve as a medic. If you are rich, too bad private. (you can buy silk boxers, if you want to flaunt your wealth while you're in uniform) If you really believe that the war being fought is fought because your existance as a nation is being threatened, than forcing the unwilling to serve is not immoral. For me, the fact that there hasn't been any real call for a draft is a sure sign that this wot is not worth fighting.
The military has been using Air Shows and Military Open Houses to recruit our youth....I invite readers to check out this video taken at Oceana Naval Air Station...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Emf__DVVUlA
I see all those kids in this video playing with the guns, admiring all the military hardware, and "trying" things out, with the friendly soldiers (and they are friendly, no doubt about it) helping them out, and I think . . . What is this if NOT indoctrination? What is this if NOT brainwashing? What is this if NOT ensnaring people when they are young into the corporate military-industrial complex and its agenda?
This is Phase III. In partnership with the "gaming" industry, they first developed the electronic war games, then got a generation of children hooked on them.
If you think American Society is sick go to an Indian Reservation. There you will find the U.S. Military life glorified like you never seen it before. Pow-wows, political events, administrative trainings, prayer, Spiritual and Religious Ceremonies, Education and Higher Educational facilities. It is simply outrageous, terrible and sad (I live on a reservation)
You can't go anywere without expecting a part of the day big or small to be dedicated to the U.S. Military, the "Hero's" of the military exploits or the honor of someones father, mother, brother, sister, aunt, etc... who were part of an military exploit. It is absolutely sick and derranged.
For all humanity and all that is in the Universe
It's a wonderful recruiting tool. The scary thing is that many of the military positions involve remote controlled weapons, from a computer terminal. You just follow orders, watch for the explosion and move up a level when the destruction is complete. What happens to our "real life gamers' who finally realize that they were the trigger men and women in real life terrorism? "Mommas, don't let you children grow up to be cowboys".... There as a generation when the technological skills and discipline learned in the military was a good option, when the feeling of being the defenders of our nation brought a measure of pride, and the maturity veterans brought to the classroom jump started their careers, not anymore. The military is through of worldwide as an invasion force, the post traumatic stress, and the difficulty of getting out once you are in makes this a very risky lifestyle.
Read Enders Game for a chilling portrayal of the devastating psychological effects on someone used in just that way. I always thought it was a great anti war novel but weirdly the author Orson Scott Card is Mormon Bush supporter. Anyway the book is worth reading despite the authors repugnant political beliefs.
I really don't see anything wrong this idea, provided the recruiters don't hassle the kids. Home console systems have far more violent games than are talked about in the article.
It's just another version of after-school basketball for the technically savvy.
Judah
Sorry, there have been some really silly things posted up to now, but I have to agree that video games for recruiting is a bad idea. We have to be careful not to present the military as John Wayne chartge the hill, killn hundreds and wipe out 20 macine gun nests.
War is not like that. Never was.
But you are certainly correct, I see more violence on TV or at the movies than any thing the military might do.
"I really don't see anything wrong this idea..."
Read Lt. Col. Dave Grossman's book: ON KILLING: THE PSYCHOLOGICAL COST OF LEARNING TO KILL IN WAR AND SOCIETY. Then you'll know in great detail how wrong it is. Here are the liner notes for you:
"The twentieth century, with its bloody world wars, revolutions, and genocides accounting for hundreds of millions dead, would seem to prove that human beings are incredibly vicious predators and that killing is as natural as eating. But Lieutenant Colonel Dave Grossman, a psychologist and U.S. Army Ranger, demonstrates this is not the case. The good news, according to Grossman - drawing on dozens of interviews, first-person reports, and historic studies of combat, ranging from Frederick the Great's battles in the eighteenth century through Vietnam - is that the vast majority of soldiers are loath to kill. In World War II, for instance, only 15 to 25 percent of combat infantry were willing to fire their rifles. The provocative news is that modern armies, using Pavlovian and operant conditioning, have learned how to overcome this reluctance. In Korea about 50 percent of combat infantry were willing to shoot, and in Vietnam the figure rose to over 90 percent. The bad news is that by conditioning soldiers to overcome their instinctive loathing of killing, we have drastically increased post-combat stress - witness the devastated psychological state of our Vietnam vets as compared with those from earlier wars. And the truly terrible news is that contemporary civilian society, particularly the media, replicates the army's conditioning techniques and - according to Grossman's controversial thesis - is responsible for our rising rates of murder and violence, particularly among the young. In the explosive last section of the book, he argues that high-body-count movies, television violence (both news and entertainment), and interactive point-and-shoot video games are dangerously similar to the training programs that dehumanize the enemy, desensitize soldiers to the psychological ramifications of killing, and make pulling the trigger an automatic response."
May we all be protected from technically savvy robo-killers.
...In World War II, for instance, only 15 to 25 percent of combat infantry were willing to fire their rifles. The provocative news is that modern armies, using Pavlovian and operant conditioning, have learned how to overcome this reluctance. In Korea about 50 percent of combat infantry were willing to shoot, and in Vietnam the figure rose to over 90 percent.
----------------------
Question...Are you saying that only 15 to 20% pulled the trigger once they were in the war zone? Or are you saying this is PRIOR to being in the war zone?
I have to believe that once in combat virtually all started shooting.
I took a quick peek back into the text and, in fact, there is ample evidence that many soldiers, even when engaged in combat, refuse to fire. On page 3-4 of his book, Grossman writes: "During World War II U.S. Army Brigadier General S.L.A. Marshall asked ... average soldiers what it was they did in battle. His singularly unexpected discovery was that, of every hundred men along the line of fire during the period of an encounter, and average of only 15 to 20 'would take any part with their weapons.' ... Those who would not fire did not run or hide (in many cases they were willing to risk great danger to rescue comrades, get ammunition, or run messages), but they simply would not fire their weapons at the enemy, even when faced with repeated waves of banzai charges." The study by Marshall interviewed thousands of soldiers. Grossman's book provides an entire section on this phenomenon, including a chapter called "Nonfirers Throughout History."
The main point is that the military came to understand that non-firing was an impediment to winning battles, so they brought modern psychology in to help design training programs to: 1) condition soldiers to fire (make firing reflexive); and, 2) desensitize soldiers to the effects of firing and killing. Arcades, such as that described in this article, are a perfect starting point for producing more reflexive and efficient killers.
I can't help but note that with that claimed rate of fire, the enemy would defeat you easily in any and every battle.
P.S. For an interesting fictional solution to the same "military problem" read Orsen Scott Card's book ENDER'S GAME.
For all you folks above, you won't find the answers to these types of questions in books. The claim that...what was it...15 or 25% of soldiers refused to fire or didn't fire their weapons is not new. But the guys that were there would tell you the guys claiming that are too stupid to walk and chew gum. A unit would be wiped out with fire rates like that.
There were certainly guys that didn't fire their weapomns at various times and certainly some that never fired...they were eased to the back when possible. Soldiers were losth to kill? Damn what a newsflash. Only stupid fools would believe the stories about slavering murderers killing everything in their path.
Sometimes I despair. You want to know what really happened, you had better talk to folks that wre there.
I know my Dad a few years ago took a criuise that went to all the Islands he was on during WW2. On the cruise they had a professor from Harvard that was giving lectures about Iwo Jima. My Dad and some of the other Marines got so amused att what this dolt was saying they couldn't help but laugh out loud. Dad said the guy got into an argument with a Captain about how long the Marines were in a certain area and how fast they mopped up the enemy. Problem was that was his Company and regiment that had been there. He told the guy, it took 3 weeks longer than the professor claimed and they were anything but mopping up the Japenese. They took 725 casaulties to beat them.
My Dad also informed him that 3rd. Marines did not land where he claimed, there had been no naval bombardment in that sector as he claimed and that it wasn't an easy landing as he claimed as they lost over 30% in landing. That it took them 7 weeks longer than the professor was claiming and they were not relieved by army units before the fighting was over. He and the three other men from his company and the 231 from his regiment left Iwo Jima. I believe them.
I get carried away sometines.... I apologize for the length.
"You want to know what really happened, you had better talk to folks that wre there."
I don't see how anecdotal information from "Dad," posted anonymously on an internet blog, surpasses a carefully researched book compiled by a former Army Ranger who went on to become a military historian and Ph.D. psychologist ("too stupid to walk and chew gum"?). In fact, the statistics were amassed from interviews with thousands of soldiers, which meets your criterion of talking to "folks that were there." The results of the primary study from WWII prompted changes in military training methods, so I guess it made an impression on those whose job it is to make effective soldiers.
Anyway, the main thrust of all this was to reinforce the observed fact that violent media desensitizes the viewer and preconditions the gamer to pull the trigger. Of course this is not new, since studies of TV since the 60s have associated media violence with subsequent violence in real life (the deniers of this are the same ilk as doctors who denied adverse effects of tobacco). It's a precautionary tale: be careful of the garbage you put in your head.
"15 or 25% of soldiers refused to fire or didn't fire their weapons is not new."
First let me correct this, I mistyped it, should have been "fired"
I didn't know I was anonymous. Sorry.
"Dad" served with the Second and Third Marines. He was in the assaults on Guadacanal, Iwo Jima, Bougainville, Guam and a couple of lesser resort Islands. Went in to Japan with the Third the first week of occupying Japan.
So plese excuse me if I take his word over some "Army Ranger", whoop de doo! Where was it he served? And interviewing thousands of soldiers is not anecdotal? Which soldiers? Combat veterans? Or "Veterans".....I'd be willing to bet a lot of money that most of his interveiwees did not were the blue rifle on their chest.
"military historian and Ph.D. psychologist" Wow....I'll just point out the example of Ward Churchill and his historical research of "Indians" and their "genocide". There are still folks today quoting his BS as truth. Thats no criteria for truth.
I believe I will believe my Dad, poor old fool that he was and the men that were there with him that came back that I was lucky enough to talk to at their reunions. Here's a clue for you, getting them to talk about those fights was like pulling teeth. That should tell you all you need to know.
I will tell you that I hear stories from Viet Nam "veterans" all the time that I can assure you comes from a guy that was never closer to being shot at than Saigon or was in fact never there. Other guys here that were in combat I believe would verify that statement.
So again, be careful what you get from books about certain things in this area. You should see some of the absurd stuff put out about Viet Nam and some of the movies are hilarious.
"Anyway, the main thrust of all this was to reinforce the observed fact that violent media desensitizes the viewer and preconditions the gamer to pull the trigger."
I can totally agree with that, in fact I believe media is responsible for the rapid expansion of gangs lately but I would suggest to you that its not hard to pull a trigger....its very hard to pull that trigger to kill. There is a vast difference.
Please accept that I did not mean to impune your father's service. Not for a moment, so let me try to clarify what I meant. If the criterion for valid commentary on the experience of war is to "talk to soldiers who were there," then that criterion must be universal. You can't take your father's experience as more legitimate than any other soldier's experience if that soldier, too, was "there" unless that soldier can be shown to be unreliable. Is your father's experience more valid than another's who fought? It IS all anecdotal, as you say. It seems you want it both ways: your father is a legitimate expert, but others are considered dubious (without evidence) and maybe, like Nick Nolte's character in "Tropic Thunder," were "never there." I am glad you trust your father, and I have neither reason nor knowledge (nor cause) to doubt him. I trust your representation of his experience. At the same time, you have no reason or knowledge to doubt men I know who have served, so please don't dismissively cast aspersions without evidence.
Please try not to be so prickly. You asked for input from people who lived in the real world where a military force is sometimes necessary. I've tried to offer input, but you castigate every offering. Is there any reason to continue this discussion?
Has anybody here seen the documantary called 'Jesus Camp'? Where the kids (and I do mean *kids*) are chanting about death to their non-christian enemies. Where they being taught hand to hand combat. Where a young charismatic boy whips his equally young flock into a frenzy of gay-hating, racist, bigoted bloodthirsty maniacs, all in the name of the 'prince of peace'.
Isn't that EXACTLY what the US accuses the Muslims of doing in their madrasas?
Now we reach out into the disintegrating mall scape and growing urban blight to anesthetise the morals of desperate young men, and seduce them into being programmed robots who will kill because thay have been reflex conditioned to do so as their only option.
As the economic collapse REALLY takes hold, the US will not need a draft to fuel it's death machine.
Yes, I have seen that. What an incredibly frightening documentary.
What's the next recruitment ground? The kiddie matinees?
I've heard that if the theme music from Rambo is played over and over again while the child is still in the womb he or she will be born with the urge to kill. Look for the Army to offer free massage therapy to pregnant women at the mall.
Instead of summer camp, toddlers soon to go to Bootie Camp.
Killing for fun and profit.
Yeah, this is a great idea. Let's start using video games to train our prepubescent children to be hardened killers before they get hooked on Dr. Suess.
Our nation is seriously ill; it's time for direct action to stop this madness.
Sadly I don't think that is going to happen, my prediction is we flame out like the USSR rather than the D-day type invasion of outraged victims of U.S. violence we deserve.
Actually that would be better than an invasion. Fewer dead, same end. Face it, you're too big to conquer.
At the time I became disillusioned with developing games software, the best 'grunt' simulator around was "Unreal" which was basically an upgraded rehash of "Quake", which was an uprated rehash of "Doom", which was a technically improved rehash of "Wolfenstein 3d".
Game evolution is as tediously predictable as the military finally experiencing their 'ah-ha!' moment then rushing double time to lob money-grenades at the less ethically inclined, conceptually-challenged developers. Their bonus was that the gaming audience was already well conditioned to the use of violence to solve problems or entertain themselves. A head start, or a brainless beginning, aided by TV and movies and news full of strife.
Nothing much has changed*. Still the same barely believable rationales for twitchy ultra-violence. Remarkably like US foreign policy.
*Bless exceptional Nintendo for their adherence to the idea of toys.
Try "Fallout 3".
As far as I can tell it is the Republican Vision for tomorrow.
And the natural end result of a world where unrestricted capitalism is allowed free reign.
And it's a damn fine game.
Far more clever than most of what passes for computer games these days. Still pretty gory though.
Adored "Fallout" and it's sequel. In it's plot, the US annexed Canada. Scary.
Yes, the gore bothers me immensely. During the design process, visceral additions usually represents a distinct lack of ideas or a willingness of producers to tow close to perceived market trends, or 'sellability.' Black Isle with their intellectual property should not need to follow the crowds.
Joining the Army may not mean death for the person whose humanity is buried under kevlar, but it certainly means death for any of the enemies of the imperial christozionist stormtrooper state.
I've certainly advised my 15 year old that if his grades don't improve making him eligible for more scholarship help, the military is probably his best option.
The military is nobody's best option. What your son needs is a parent who is responsible enough to allow the boy's prefrontal cortex to develop sufficiently before being encouraged to make life destroying decisions. Just because it didn't work for you, is no reason to discount the statistical evidence that it works for most people. By age 23 the prefrontal cortex is fully developed in almost all humans. Age twenty two is the point military enlistment figures plummet off the chart.
He's extremely intelligent, too much so for his own good sometimes. He's just not as academically inclined as I was, and is a bit lazy and undisciplined. I have no plans to push him into it, but certainly making him aware it's an option, and an honorable one besides.
Honorable?
As a friend of mine, a former Vietnam vet, said in response to the recent, frequent claims that John McCain was a war "hero": "What's so heroic about carpet bombing peasants from 30,000 feet?"
Got his planes mixed up, ole John's wasn't at those heights.
OK, so what's honorable or heroic about naping peasants from lower altitudes?
Frankly the only ones talking about "heroism" seem to be folks here. Do I consider McCain a "hero," Nope. I only saw about three in 14 months and one was NVA. Do I admire him for lasting thru his captivity, you bet your bippy. Thats tough stuff and those boys keeping him weren't a well mannered group, they were NVA regulars and its not their best troops assigned to prisons.
Don't talk about bombing "peasants" its silly. They were attacking military targets around Hanoi.
I don't know that McCain used Napalm in those attacks, it would be very unusual. Napalm is a ground support weapon.
Did you hear about recently declassified statements by Henry Kissinger regarding the illegal bombing of Cambodia? "Kill everything that moves." Doesn't sound like military targets around Hanoi.
John wasn't in Cambodia. And Cambodia was carpet bombing by B-52's. And yes that Yep andsounds like something he would say. Same type of guy as his master. Good thing he didn't make any visits to the front either.
The Russians and Chinese were using Cambodia as a transportation and staging area. I can tell you that for sure.
"illegal bombing of Cambodia?"
Thats like the "illegal" war in Viet Nam. Sophistry by the anti war left back then and since. Just as talking about the Iraq being "illegal" One was and the other is..."legal" by our laws. End of story.
Would either have been worse if they had been "illegal"? Not as I see it.
"Honorable?" What is honerable about the the million uncesarry dead in Iraq?
http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/iraq/iraqdeaths.html
Hint there were no WMDs the original casus belli, maybe you didn't get the memo? And the war in Afghanistan in unwinnable it's not called the "grave of empire"s for nothing, perhaps you ought to read some history of the middle east and Afghanistan Mr. self styled "academic" before nudging you child toward death and destruction?
Don't give your kid a hard time if he isn't academic maybe he's good at something else like illustration, music, working honestly outdoors with his hands perhaps as a skilled carpenter, or plumber? Anything including petty crime or drug dealer is better than the murderous U.S. military!
hootowl
Wrong again.
"murderous U.S. military!" There is nothing murderous about the U.S. military. Thats an old, old song from the anti war left in the sixties. Anti military types often try to say that serving in the military wrong. My reply to them is...don't serve. Just not the truth.
The military is a good option for many people for many reasons. Always has been, always will be. It can be a good career. People often forget the many duties the military performs other than fighting.
I am surprised you would rate drug dealers above the folks that have allowed you to sit at your keyboard. Consider seperating soldiers from politics. Seperating the bad decisions of cowards like Bush that misuse our kids from the kids themselves.
Iraq and Afganistan are not the end all of the world. There are a few folks left out there that you might want to have something between your family and them more than a debate society.
Pax.
What makes being a robotic pawn for the military-industrial complex "honorable"?
What makes being a professional murderer and hired assassin "honorable"?
"You must unlearn what you have learned" - Jedi Master Yoda
Seventhson
"What makes being a professional murderer and hired assassin "honorable"?"
I wish you would reconsider that statement. Its not true you know.
The usa hasn't fought in any honourable wars in the last half century. There is no honour in murdering for the corporate bottom line of Ford, IBM, Exxon or any other company which employes the us army.
How honoured will you be to have a gold star on your window instead of grandchildren?
How honoured would you be to take care of your son should he return from fighting with half his brain missing?
How honoured would you be should your son return physically intact, but nuttier than squirrel poo. Nutty enough to thank you for your suggestion that he enlist by vivisecting your dumb arse...
On edit; You do realise where the 'honourable' idea comes from when talking about military service don't you? It was the Japanese and Prussian Empires that stressed the idea that militarism was an honourable persuit. The Mongols also stressed the idea of honorable service in the killing of their enemies. Didn't one of your earlier presidents argue that a standing army was a threat to your liberties?
There are lots of good apprentice programs available in the building trades. Any of these, in my opinion, would be far better than a "position" in the military. I wish I had taken that route myself, instead of college.
-- ekaton aka d.k.shaw
EKATON
I hate to tell you this, but in the Southwest, California and creeping your way...those jobs you are speaking of are not there. they have been filled by illegal aliens. The building trades are filled with them.
I hope we will be able to restore what you are talking about in the near future. I agree with you about apprentice programs.
Another news article posted elsewhere today details the new military policy to enlist overweight applicants. Feel free to post your own suggested slogans for our new beefed up armed forces. Some include ...
The few, the proud, the stuffed.
An army of one couch potato. (It's all we can afford to feed)
Food fight!
Join now, we'll fatten you up for the slaughter.
Uncle Sam wants your fat ass.
Nah, they'll argue that the military is a great weight loss program.
You too can lose all that excess flesh, (so there's a good chance you'll be left with bones alone.)
Every veteran in this country should take it upon him/herself to talk to kids about the reality of war - and its physical and mental aftermath. This is not about national security - it is simply, egregiously and malignantly about empire and corporate control of the world. This bullshit would change if the poor kids understood they are being torn apart and killed so the rich kids can stay at home, go to college, and take a hand in daddy's politically lop-sided system. You want your country back - then fight this cancerous militarism that is invading every facet of our lives.
odoco
"Every veteran in this country should take it upon him/herself to talk to kids about the reality of war - and its physical and mental aftermath."
This is something you are correct about.
This is a volunteer army, your argument about rich and poor doesn't apply as it did when we had a draft.
Would you rather have a draft?
I agree 100% with you odoco. Militarism has replaced patriotism in our country. If we really needed to raise an army because we were really threatened you wouldn't have to persuade children to join. But since all our wars are political wars there is a need to lie to people to get them to enlist. Every recruiter should have a full-circle vet next to him when he tries to talk someone into signing up. Anyone who has both sides of the story will surely decline to enlist.
Hoa binh
since1492
"Anyone who has both sides of the story will surely decline to enlist."
I'll have to politely disagree with you. There will always be plenty of kids and men that want to serve their country. Proud to serve their country and will. Even if that Vet told them what war is really like, they will still join.
But at the moment....for Bush's war in Iraq, if a young man asked me if he should volunteer, serve his country...I'd tell him no. Under no circumstances join now. This war is not serving our country.
Hoa binh
Wow!
Sounds like an impressive set of video game hardware.
And also sounds like a lot of fun.
This is going to up their recruitment in the Urban areas sure enough....and get a lot more young people physically and mentally wounded for life.
Too bad they don't have the "After the Army: Life on the Mean Streets" video game available for them to play as well.
Yeah, it could teach them how to live in a cardboard box when they can't find a job after the government tells them to "get over" their post traumatic stress disorder.