Moscoso: "Could Immigrants Replenish the US Military"

O’Hanlon’s proposal to essentially import foreign nationals to serve in the United States military is just as unlikely to occur than Rodrick’s proposal for national service. While I have nothing against allowing foreign nationals to gain citizenship through enlistment into the military, his plan has several problems. For example, he states “importing immigrants to be soldiers would solve the military’s recruitment problems and provide the Armed Forces with more translators and experts in other cultures.” As it stand now translators and experts in their fields need specific clearance, this clearance cannot be attained be foreigners. I think it is important to acknowledge his point that if too man immigrants serve in the military then they and their families are not politically represented in the government.

Aside from these minor details, bring foreign nationals into the army many help solve some of these problems. Foreign citizens already make up a portion of the military, as he cites 40,000. The argument that it is un-American to have non-Americans fighting its war is not convincing. Historically the United States has had foreign nationals serve in the military. I would like to hope that decision makers in Washington share the belief that a life is a life and it should not be risked unnecessarily. Ultimately, I think it will become necessary to consider the use of foreign nationals in the military more seriously.

Bailey: The Army in the Marketplace: Recruiting an All-Volunteer Force

Beth Bailey deconstructed the military’s advertizing campaign today as well as the history of an All-Volunteer Army well. By moving to an All-Volunteer Army she puts this in terms of economic factors. Prospective recruits as “consumers” and the military as the “product”. In this sense many factors influence the military’s recruitment. To a large extent this is true, military commercials all focus on different aspects to sell their “product.” I have noticed that the different branches of the military focus on different things. For example, the navy “See the world” as opposed the Marines who focus on transformation, even the motto we see on the commercials is “the FEW, the Proud, the Marines. The army for instance increasingly advertises this benefits such as job training and educational benefits.

One aspect I wish she could have spent more time on how recruits feel they are being mislead by advertising campaigns. This happens with all types of “products” but one can not return the army if they do not like it. The ad advertising 16 months in Europe seemed like a good example, here it is very easy to be mislead by this ad. The text makes the army seem like a mix between study abroad and a pleasant vacation. On the last page she touches on how soldiers are being misled. She gives the example of how the Europe ad was changes to read “In Europe You’re on Duty 24 Hours a Day, but the Rest of the Time Is Your Own.”(p.74) This I think highlights a key problem with an All-Volunteer Army, they offer a variety of opportunities but since they are the military and not just a commercial “product” this causes problems. Especially today when soldiers are actually expected to fight and when needed their deployments are extended beyond what the recruitment campaign made them expect.

I think it is important to contrast what the military is offering now as opposed to pre-1973. Bailey asserts that obligation and citizenship were reason for soldiers during the days of conscription. While honor, glory and sacrifice are still used as examples to join the military today they are not used to the same extent as they were used prior to an All-Volunteer Army. Now it would seem that the honor, glory and tradition the military offers is very much mixed in with all the economic benefits enlisting has.

Stahl: "How You Played the War on Terror"

I found it really interesting that the US military designed its equipment around the PS2 because they figured soldiers would already be familiar with it. The term military-entertainment complex describes it well I think. Until recently I never realized this is a two way process. Many think that the gaming industry takes from the military, few believe that the military is also borrowing from new virtual combat games.

 This essay reminded me of a program I watched recently. The military had enlisted a number of computer programmers, who had never seen combat, to make a realistic combat training program for new soldiers. The difference between this and some of the examples cited by Stahl was how these designs were based largely off experiences they had seen in movies and elsewhere, rather than actual combat.