Response to "Before You Enlist" Video

A lot of the things this video showed and the accounts told from people in this video were things that we have been hearing about recruitment and the disillusionment of joining the military. Most of the things in the video were ideas I have heard before about how the recruiters present the military in a positive way, and how it war is not as glamorous as they make it seem. There were some things in the video that did surprise me though, and good ideas raised that I had not previously considered. One person talked about joining the military, and how just after the first day, the images he had of the military were shattered, and that after one day he knew the military was not what he had thought it would be. One mother of a volunteer said her son was just 19 when he joined, and that at 19, people cannot make such an important decision of joining the military. This is an interesting point, especially considering how young the army begins recruitment with their video games and movies. A large part of the film spent time discussing how lost younger people are when they join -- and then leave -- the military. A fact the movie gave us was that the college funding the army promises only usually gives about 1/5 of the cost of a private school. That is about $8,000 or so for most private schools, about the same amount of a decent academic scholarship. Because the army purposely recruits people who do not come from a good background or good high school education system, they know that these people do not have much of a chance to get an academic scholarship, or even go to college, so the military provides them with a good alternative. One part of this I did not agree with was when the movie focused on veterans that are homeless, and said that a percentage of veterans are currently homeless. This is true of any demographic, and does not necessarily correlate to their time spent in the army. I was really shocked when the film discussed how women are treated in the military, and it reminded me of the controversy about gays in the military. One of the people in the movie told us about someone she knew who was raped in the military, and she was told that it would be too difficult to press charges so she should let it go. This is a very unprofessional way to handle this, and I wonder if this occurred because the army devalues its women or wants to continue to enable masculine strength and brotherhood in the army. The thing that most surprised me in this video was how the army claims to be all-volunteer but then retains the right to change your contract, and can add years on to your contract that you did not sign up for. This is a sneaky way for the military to still technically be all-volunteer but still have volunteers forced to serve for a longer time.

Comments on Beth Bailey's "The Army in the Marketplace Recruiting an All-Volunteer Force"

The thing that struck me most as I read this article is how economic and political military advertisements and recruitment are. I was surprised to read how based in economics and capitalism military recruitment is: "This system [all-volunteer military] functions as a labor market, driven by complex forces of supply and demand" (48). Advertisements used by the military was an economic and political and were used the same way advertisements for consumer goods were used: as a product to sell. I never thought of recruitment as something to be sold, but the amount of research and monetary funds that went into selling the idea of joining the army makes it clear that recruitment was something to sell: "'Let advertising do for the Army', he proposed, 'what it has done successfully for business'" (54). The research the Army invested in advertisements and targeting specific demographics shows the extent to which advertising was one of the most important factors in recruitment: "Army recruiting advertisements were, more than anything else, intended to attract draft-induced volunteers to the army rather than to be other services" (57). When the article began discussing specific slogans and advertisements used by the Army, I was really surprised when Bailey tells us that by December 1971, the Army's slogan "Today's Army Wants You To Join" had more public recognition than Ford cars and 7-Up soda. I know in general advertisements for companies and products use market research and are very particular about where they place their advertisements and who their target demographic is, but reading the specifics about how the Army placed their advertisements and how they presented the image of the Army really shocked me. When Bailey discusses how gender and race are utilized in the advertisements, I wasn't surprised at the extent the advertisements went to appeal to all races and genders, but the way advertisements for the Army, and advertisements in general, consider different genders or races just another demographic makes me angry: "Sex changed the surroundings dramatically; race changed nothing. For people of the same sex, the settings were identical, white and black people completely interchangeable" (65-66). I never knew that the Army advertisements worked the same way as product advertisements; I assumed advertisements for recruitment would have to be more personal in order to effectively convince people to join the Army, so hearing ab out the strategies used by the Army gave me a new perspective on their recruitment, and the politics and economics involved in it. I did not realize how planned and studied the Army's recruitment tactics and advertisements were: even the subtleties in advertisements, like the Army's presenting themselves as a group, instead of separating the consumer from the Army (like in the "We Want You advertisements) was planned for a specific purpose, and this economic way of presenting the Army and planning of the advertisements make their recruiting seem very sneaky.

Comments on Roger Stahl's "Have You Played the War on Terror?"

One part of Stahl's article, "Have You Played the War on Terror" that I found really interesting and that we did not get a chance to cover in class was when he is discussing the ratings of video games, specifically America's Army. He discusses how when humans in the game die, they die peacefully, even though they have just been shot to death. The Army's defense to the violence and realism in their video games is that "The point is 'not to promote violence', says Army Major Bret Wilson...'it is to promote the jobs that are done by the Army'" (124). This quote was surprising for me to read, because my initial reaction to a 'job done by the Army' would include violence: the Army's job is to go to war and fight people. Upon thinking about it, however, I can think of other jobs the Army has, such as reporting for duty and physical training and pressing their uniforms...however I don't think any of these Army jobs are shown in the video games. Stahl goes on to tell us, "Game promoters are also quick to point out the parental control feature that turns all gun fighting into laser tag" (124). I found this part so ridiculous that it was almost funny. The fact that there are parental controls that can change the weapons of war does not change the fact that their children are playing war. I also get an image of people playing a video game expecting it to be violent and bloody, and finding laser tag and people flying into the sky after they get shot. The fact that there are these parental controls also reminds me of our discussion in class a few weeks ago about the militarized can of soup, and the relations between the child who wants to eat the soup because of the cool weapons, and the parent who may be against toy guns but wants their child to eat soup. Here, the parents can technically control how violent their children's video games are, but at the risk of having the child become angry at them for taking away the realism (and fun) of the game by falsifying and changing the game. This would also create a situation where it is the child and his/ her video game versus the parents who want to separate the child from the video game, making the video game even more fun, perhaps because it is forbidden. For me, the fact that parents can technically control the violence and weapons in war video games is such a small issue when considering war video games and their overall influence for the player.

Comments on Karen Hall's "Combat Entertainment and Citizen Training in the United States"

The part of this article that I found most interesting was on page 8, when Hall discusses the idea of adults joining children's war play. She gives one example of burying toys in the backyard after they have been involved in war play. Hall claims, "Burying toys killed in action gives adults and children the opportunity to discuss the realities of war...Destruction is not followed by replay but instead by a recognition of loss". This idea is something that I had never heard of before. I never really played war games when I was younger, so I do not know much about how they are played, but I am pretty sure that most children do not have a ritual like this that involves burying their toys after they are done playing with them. However, in the context of war play, it does make sense and remain consistent with the game: if a soldier is killed, the game and the soldiers cannot break character just for your toy. Although I would imagine children would be very reluctant to bury their toys and never play with them again, this is a very direct message to children that war is not a game, and that there are serious losses in war (even more serious than never playing with that toy again). This idea reminds me a lot of war movies, and the documentary we watched and the discussion we had of war movies. As real as war movies may look, and how ever scrutinized a film may be by the Pentagon to ensure accuracy, we still know that the movie is fake because we know the actors, and we know they are not dead. Perhaps if we saw a war movie in which Matt Damon's character died and then Matt Damon never made a movie ever again, we may be able to take the casualty of war in film more seriously. Just like in war play with children's toys, films allow people to always know that the war they are watching or playing is not real, and does not have real consequences. Hall also makes the connection between children's war games and film in her article: "Re-enacting the scenes children view in other media serves to equate play with collecting. Invention and inquiry are drained from children's play when collecting becomes the primary activity their toys invite. Toy sets sold seperately or as modular universes such as Star Wars, Spinal Zone figures and vehicles, Lego military sets and GI Joe dolls train children's desires toward acquring objects rather than seeking out toys that augment creative activity, further strengthening the influence media narratives have in children's lives". Hall points out the connection between all forms of media, and how one form of media only perpetuates the ideas of another, as with film and toys. The idea of burying military toys after they have been killed in battle is an efficient way to cut off one form of media from glorifying war, and an appropriate way to teach children about the unseen part of war.