Get Schooled

By Karen Armsby

December 12, 2005 08:36 AM | Link to this

I don’t have a problem with this. My dad was career Air Force and I appreciate and respect our armed services. My son (who is in college now) was called while he was in high school, and I knew who it was because my son and husband have the first name so I asked who was calling and which one he wanted to talk to. My son talked to the recruiter, told him of his plans to attend college and then we discussed the call afterwards. I appreciated the fact that we had the opportunity to discuss it while he still lived at home.

Our culture shelters children for too long! Most kids at eighteen should be ready to go out on their own and start making their own decisions. Even if we still support them when we send them to college, we have to trust them to make good decisions about their studies, money and the opposite sex.

Why would parents think that a simple call from a military recuriter is a threat? If you have been a good parent and prepared your child to make thoughtful decisions, then you should trust their judgment when he/she is talking to a recruiter.

By melissa

December 12, 2005 08:40 AM | Link to this

Why shouldn’t military recruiters be allowed in the schools? Colleges, trade schools, and apprenticeship organizations are so we should exclude one of the most important jobs in our country? Schools are federally funded, if we don’t allow the military in schools, should we stop getting the money from the government? Just a thought.

By B. Killebrew

December 12, 2005 08:44 AM | Link to this

Right on, Karen Armsby!

By Jim

December 12, 2005 08:46 AM | Link to this

Let the gubbermint call all they want to, as long as they don’t re-instate the draft. I’ll fight shoulder to soulder with my kids to defend U.S. soil, but not some “worthy” overseas “interest” dreamed up by polititions who’s own children will never be involved in the military.

By B. Killebrew

December 12, 2005 08:46 AM | Link to this

Right on, melissa!

By Hmm

December 12, 2005 08:49 AM | Link to this

I’m against their calls. I’m glad parents are finding out about the opt-out forms. The recruiters are known for their sleazy and underhanded tactics. The children are beginning their adult lives, and the recruiters see fresh meat. I find the whole process disgusting. When the recruiters had their own tables at college fairs, and weren’t any more aggressive than colleges, there were no problems. But when the calls are harassing, unwanted by the parents and/or the children, demeaning to the potential recruit, promising the world to wide-eyed innocent young adults, it’s not right. I definitely do not see the problem as a “single call”. And the parents that have complained have most likely endured multiple calls, with multiple outcomes. They’re worse than telemarketers.
If my son wanted to join the military, he knows where to find the local recruiting office.

By oldteacher

December 12, 2005 08:52 AM | Link to this

It isn’t going to hurt to have them call. Students should be shown all their life choices. Go, Karen.

By Hmm

December 12, 2005 08:52 AM | Link to this

Melissa, Having the military in school presenting opportunities is on thing (and totally great!) Having them harass you at home, while making outrageous promises is another thing entirely. Having recruiters lead PE classes and handling guns in classes and or schools is another thing entirely, too. I don’t support the latter at all.

By oldteacher

December 12, 2005 09:03 AM | Link to this

Just reread Melissa’s post. I didn’t see anything in there about the military taking over PE and having them teach the use of guns. Did you see something that I didn’t see?

By Jeff

December 12, 2005 09:03 AM | Link to this

I’ve gotten the emails, letters, and even calls, and I’m glad I have. One recruiter was actually calling my younger brother (a recent HS grad) and I wound up talking to him. He was very courteous and upfront about everything. He did everything he could to get me in - which is something I wanted - but there were issues and I got medically PDQ’d.

These guys are just doing their jobs, same as the telemarketers. The biggest difference I see? The telemarketers want you to buy more THINGS, the recruiters want you to SERVE YOUR COUNTRY. Personally, I find that to be noble.

(BTW: One of my closest friends is a retired recruiter for the USAF, another at my church is a recruiter for the Army.)

If any of you live in the Rome/ Cartersville area and are interested in the Marines, contact SSgt. Barfield @ Berry Square Mall in Rome. He’ll shoot straight with ya!

By Hmm

December 12, 2005 09:15 AM | Link to this

oldteacher, Nobody said Melissa’s post said those things. If you do a little research, you’ll find case after case where the recruiters have simply gone way too far to “sell”. Jeff, I don’t see the sell as simply “serving your country” either. You’re putting a significant chunk of your life on hold for someone else. A good chance you’ll be fighting a war you do not believe in, and a telemarketer doesn’t request you to buy their product with your life. And as time has told, many of the lures don’t pan out. The money promised for college, the employment opportunities, the committment. With telemarketing, and even colleges, there’s a respectful way out if you, as a young person, should change your mind.

But even beyond this, the recruiters should respect the parents. In their own homes, if the parents do not welcome the recruiter visits and calls, then there should be no more. I frankly don’t care how old the child is, any recruiter that attempts to cause a divide between a child and his parent should be strung up by their pinkie toes. The child is very well aware of military options afterschool, and if there’s interest, it’s easy to get more info!

By Mark

December 12, 2005 09:20 AM | Link to this

Those that have posted here opposed to military recruiters have defended their positon by making unsubstantiated and unproven accusations of promising the world, being sleazy and harrassing young men and women. The truth be known, of every telemarketer that has ever called your house, the recruiter will be most professional, polite and straight-forward caller you will ever hear.

The fact is, those against the recruiters’ calling are just against the military, period. They don’t care who defends their rights and wonderful life in the U.S., just so it’s not their own kids. As a former recruiting commander, I have never served with finer, more concerned young men and women. They provide educational and career opportunities that many would never know about without these contacts. If your child is not interested - trust me - the recruiter will not waste their time. There are plenty who are.

Experience shows very clearly, that when a young person says they are not interested in military service, they are the least likely to be able to complete the basic training to become a member of the Armed Forces. Just tell your little one to say they are not interested and their name will be so annotated on the logs.

By D

December 12, 2005 09:21 AM | Link to this

I guess it’s OK for adults to give your kid drugs, alchohol, sex, etc, but we all know kids should not be encouraged to do something that is noble and good, especially at an early age of being able to start driving a car!

By Dan

December 12, 2005 09:22 AM | Link to this

15 seems a little young, but I suspect it is an extreme example like most of the discussion starters. I think maybe approaching HS juniors and seniors would be fine, it is after all a legitimate career choice for many HS grads. Although the recruiters can be swindlers, not because they are military but it is simply the nature of the job, so should help the students screen out some of the BS. Of course that in itself is a life lesson

By Karen Armsby

December 12, 2005 09:23 AM | Link to this

Thanks B. Killebrew and oldteacher. I would like to add that my son also received mutliple calls from recuiters from the different armed service branches. Each caller was courteous and respectful and in no way would I deem the calls as harrassment.

Hmmm, if the calls you received were truly harrassing then why didn’t you call the local recruiting office to report them? The military recruiters I have spoken to have been professional and polite, traits they are trained to exhibit.

Hmmm, there are ROTC units in high school that are led by military personnel for those in the ROTC, not the general student population.

Hmmm, may I ask why are you so threatened by the military? IMHO If we did not have our military fighting terrorism abroad, you can bet we would be fighting the terrorists here at home. Count your freedom as a blessing and a privilege provided to you by our armed forces.

Merry Christmas and God Bless America!

By AR

December 12, 2005 09:23 AM | Link to this

Parents need to remember that if they opt-out on calls or letters from the military, that also includes opting out of contacts by colleges either for academic or sports reasons. You can’t pick and choose to whom you want to let the school district give your child’s name. Our 17-year-old is getting the letters and has received one call. I told the recruiter that I needed to ask my Vietnam combat veteran if he wanted the recruiter to talk to our son. He kind of nervously laughed and hung up.

By D

December 12, 2005 09:27 AM | Link to this

If I read this correctly, we have complaints about children being asked to join the military. Are these same parents complaining about their kid being offered drugs, alcohol, even sex? If all you have to worry about is someone asking your child to join the US Armed Forces, you need to turn on the TV and see what goes on around you!

By D

December 12, 2005 09:28 AM | Link to this

If I read this correctly, we have complaints about children being asked to join the military. Are these same parents NOT complaining about their kid being offered drugs, alcohol, even sex? If all you have to worry about is someone asking your child to join the US Armed Forces, you need to turn on the TV and see what goes on around you!

By oldteacher

December 12, 2005 09:35 AM | Link to this

One of my teammates is a former Army recruiter and just like many people, he had a quota to make every year. He and other recruiters are just sales people for the military. Yes, there are some who promise things that are not obtainable, but they are not all that way. Also, in my person experience, military people are super polite to us civilians.

Someone did mention taking over PE and guns in the classroom.

By Karen Armsby

December 12, 2005 09:51 AM | Link to this

Hmm, From you statement it appears that you advocate torture by stringing the recuriters up by their pinkie toes? Is this what you teach your child that if anyone disagrees with your position, then you can use violence? I bet your kid will be glad to leave a home where violence is threatened and intelligent discussion is absent!

Seriously, I hope that is NOT what you meant. However, I think it is important to teach our soon-to-be-adults to think independently and make decisions for which they will be responsible. It’s your home, and your child’s home, too. Our role as parents is to be available to discuss many issues with them before they move away. If you cut off this one avenue of discussion, what other avenues have you cut off? It’s been my experience as a mom of three that as soon as you say NO and put your foot down, then guess what, the child will find a way to defy you. It’s better to have frank and open discussions with your child about your reasons for supporting or opposing anything.

By Jeff

December 12, 2005 09:58 AM | Link to this

OK, one of my pet peeves is liberals claiming that when you sign up for the US Armed Forces you’ll be shipped out to Iraq or Afghanistan.

FOR THE RECORD, from the DoD: Total Military personnel (not including civilians employed by the DoD): 1,390,765

Total Military personnel assigned to Operation Enduring Freedom (Afghanistan): 19,500

Total Military Personnel assigned to Operation Iraqi Freedom (Iraq): 169,200

Now for my own synthesis: Combined #s for both Iraq and Afghanistan: 188,700

This equates to ONLY 13.57% of the ENTIRE UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES!!!

In other words, ONLY 7 out of every 50 people in the military are in Iraq or Afghanistan!

By Marc

December 12, 2005 10:13 AM | Link to this

The same ones who are blogging that the students should be allowed to make their own decisions are the same ones who blogged that Mr. Youngblood should have been fired for showing a senior, gifted high school class of students an R-rated movie! Hypocrites!

By Jennifer

December 12, 2005 10:19 AM | Link to this

Why not have the same rules that apply to academic and athletic contact by colleges apply to the military ? I think formal athletic recruitment contact is limited to a certain grade level. I also think parents and students deserve proactive and full disclosure from their schools on the ‘opt out ’ parameters. It would also seem appropriate that if recruiters abuse the limits on phone calls/emails, parents and students should have the right to sign up for a “no call/no email” list like you can with marketers.

By Jake

December 12, 2005 10:32 AM | Link to this

“Provide educational and career opportunities that many would never know about”. That’s ridiculous, any competent guidance counselor can provide that information without the slanted perspective of a recruiter trying to make his quota. And Jeff, if out current 33 month occupation continues for another 33 or 333 months, what percentage of our military personnel have and will serve over there? I think you’ve slanted your data by only quoting today’s numbers, not the total that have or will rotate through tours of duty in those locations.

By oldteacher

December 12, 2005 10:42 AM | Link to this

Mr. Youngblood broke the rules. He resigned. How is this comparable to a recruiter calling a student at home?

By Jason

December 12, 2005 10:48 AM | Link to this

I’m all for the recruitment of 15-year-olds. I’ve decided against enlisting, so someone will need to take my place. Plus, I’ll have less competition in the job market if more young men and women are busy fulfilling their military obligations and unable to go to college and apply for the same positions as me. God bless George W. Bush…and America!

By Jeff

December 12, 2005 11:08 AM | Link to this

Just to prove that my numbers are NOT slanted:

WWII: Served 16 million+ Killed: 400,000+

Vietnam: Served: I’ll call it 10 million, which includes ALL military personnel from 1965-1975 and pads THAT number by at least 1 million. Also note that many in this number are repeats (served multiple years). I simply couldn’t find an accurate number. Killed: 211,529 (including wounded)

Even padding IEF AND OIF #s by 500,000 (an overly vast number, from what I’ve seen)gives: Served: 1,188,700 Killed: ~2,000

Also, stop listening to the liberal media so much and actually talk to soldiers that have BEEN THERE. I’ve talked to several, and NOT ONE agrees that the situation is what the media is telling us. They have ALL said it is far better. Do they miss their families? Hell yeah. But the other thing they keep telling me? “Dude, tell everyone: We’re getting the job done. And we’re not leaving until the job is completely finished.”

By Don

December 12, 2005 11:12 AM | Link to this

Now that’s thinking Jason! It is the same mindset the rich use when they shelter their sons from the military. Maybe it will open the eyes of some of these parents. You will not find your Senator or Congressman sons at the recruiting station or receiving phone calls. We are at War! Young men die and are maimed in war! This is not a John wayne Movie! I spent 5 years in the Air Force and while my experience was enlightening I knew better than joining the Marines or Army.

By Don

December 12, 2005 11:22 AM | Link to this

Jeff I have a question to ask. What was the odds of being killed or maimed in Vietnam, or the Korean conflict if you did not go off to war? Same question regarding the current middleast conflict? Ans: 0

By Brian Curtis

December 12, 2005 11:28 AM | Link to this

Hey, if the military wants to send recruiters on campus along with all the other companies at Career Day, that’s fine.

But handing out special, privileged access in the form of address lists and phone numbers? No way. Privacy is more important than filling up the dwindling ranks of the military.

And it goes without saying that if a recruiter lies to get you to sign, they should be dishonorably discharged immediately.

By Jeff

December 12, 2005 11:33 AM | Link to this

Don,

Q:What is the difference between Korea (even WWII), Vietnam, and Iraq/ Afghanistan?

A: Iraq/ Afghanistan is an ALL VOLUNTEER FORCE. Every person there at some point made the concious decision to risk their lives. It was not something that was forced on them. And you can’t tell me that the thought that you might be killed is not something that enters a new recruit’s mind. Trust me, I’ve been there. Yet every single military member we have in Iraq/Afghanistan still CHOSE to be there.

All you liberals talk about the right to choose as being a very highly regarded right. Why can’t you accept a service member’s choice? Oh yeah, that’s right: Same reason you don’t accept any other choice that doesn’t agree with your politics. Bunch of hypocrites! (Oh, and before you say ‘pot calling the kettle black’, please note that conservatives generally aren’t the ones promoting choice and then decrying choices individuals make.)

By Jeff

December 12, 2005 11:34 AM | Link to this

Brian,

As far as recruiters who lie: I don’t know where you stand politically, but on that point, we agree completely.

By Don

December 12, 2005 11:38 AM | Link to this

Sorry to inform you but I am a Conservative! I just disagree with the idea of war. Im not up to the task of disguising a recruiting drive with patriotic fervor or romanticism. I think the welfare of our country can be solidified and reinforced without the sacrifice of our youth.

By Jeff

December 12, 2005 11:50 AM | Link to this

Ok, so this may come as a surprise:

I’m actually very much a favor if complete isolationism, with an ultra strong border defense grid. (Basically take our entire overseas deployments, redeploy them to our borders, and make dang sure that the only people that get in are the ones we want in.) It just makes my blood boil to see people trashing our service members by saying they are fighting for nothing.

By Amazed (Independent Woman)

December 12, 2005 11:51 AM | Link to this

Don’t call my child, if he/she is interested they know where to find you.

For me, it’s not about “Not” wanting a child to serve. I am concerned that they seem to be targeting lower and middle income children only. And when I say middle income, I am not referring to 65,000 and above.

By Robert

December 12, 2005 12:20 PM | Link to this

Hmmmm… Why should the military have an advantage of directly calling when no one else can. Can Coca-Cola get a high school list and directly call kids? No. Can North GA College get a high school list and directly call kids? No.

If no one else can directly call kids, why should the military be able to? I say to restrict the military to the same standards as public schools give to any company or any college.

By Gary

December 12, 2005 12:34 PM | Link to this

Amazed I see your point, but I will flat out disagree with you. What people don’t understand is that military recruiters go to every school and recruit young people regardless of the family income. They don’t target one kid b/c of his income. I know from fact that the recruiters do not have this information. They offer the same choices to all young men and women that they contact. I have seen many of my friends and classmates from my high school days be recruited and some of them had very wealthy families. Some of them even came from the most well-known and well-off families in my community. The baseless cries that the military only takes the poorest is ridiculous. There is no evidence to back this up and it is just liberal hoopla.

By Jamie E.

December 12, 2005 12:40 PM | Link to this

Having been a high school student that was “courted” by recruiters, and also being an Army veteran, I figured I would put my two cents in. It is not putting your life on hold to join the military; your life is just taking a different path. There are wonderful opportunities the military offers. Yes, you can complete your college education while serving your country. Are there dishonest recruiters? Of course! Are there pushy recruiters? Absolutely! The key to their promises, is to GET THEM IN WRITING!! If the deal isn’t sweet enough for you, just say thanks but no thanks and walk away. I am of the opinion our youth needs to serve a mandatory 2-3 year enlistment out of high school. Instill some values and discipline in kids, and teach them a skill they can use in the career path of their choosing. I don’t think just men should have to sign up on their 18th birthday. I’m female, and if I can do it, so can others. If either one or both of my daughters wanted to follow the military path, I would encourage them and help them in any way I could. It is their life, their choices, my role as mother is to prepare them for that.

By Robert

December 12, 2005 12:42 PM | Link to this

Jeff, Must you follow all of the ditto-heads and name-call anyone and anything that you disagree with as “liberal?” The word liberal in Webster’s is not defined as “anything that Jeff doesn’t like.”

By Jeff

December 12, 2005 12:54 PM | Link to this

Robert,

I apologize. I DO tend to draw broad stereotypes, particularly in politico-religious discussions. I DO contend that for the most part - not in every case, but for the majority - my stereotypes are at least moderately, if not completely, accurate.

By Robert

December 12, 2005 12:54 PM | Link to this

Gary,

You twist the issue regarding the military and the poor….

A fact is that the more wealthy have more options. They can afford to send their children to college if they so chose. They can afford to hire their own child in their own business if they so chose. And, so on… And, a fact that follows is that the more poor do not have as many options in comparison.

Therefore, it is logical to assume that a recruiter for the military would spend more time/money/energy recruiting in a poorer area. Their efforts would be more rewarded compared to spending the same effort in a more wealthy area. Right? Can’t you see that?

If you were a recruiter, and if you were given lists from a high school. Would you spend the bulk of your time recruiting a student with a 4.5 gpa (they took some AP courses) and a perfect SAT score and whose Mommy and Daddy are both doctors, or would you spend your time on a student with a 3.5 gpa that scored maybe a 1000 on the SAT and who comes from a single parent home? The odds would be better for recruitment if you spent your time on the second student, right? Can’t you see that?

This is why people that are logical and that actually spend a little bit of their own brain thinking about such things can clearly see how the military thrives on the backs of the poor compared to the rich.

By Jake

December 12, 2005 01:13 PM | Link to this

Jeff, they probably joined for a combination of serving their country and receiving the benefits (there’s a lot of guard/reserve that weren’t planning on active duty when they enlisted, just some extra money for their families). Once they get deployed they’re fighting for the same thing they’ve pretty much always fought for, the man next to them. But I don’t believe it’s unpatriotic to want to save young lives by bringing them home. What amazes me is people that never even served getting so fired up they make outrageous statements about people causing US lives by motivating the enemy, when Bush is clearly the proximate cause. Right or wrong he’s the CIC and he sent them in harm’s way, not Cindy Sheehan. And Don’s right, if he hadn’t American casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan would be 0, not 2144 dead and at least 16,000 wounded and counting. FYI, I served as an artillery surveyor with the 1/92nd in ‘69 and ‘70 at Ben Het among others.

By Amazed (Independent Woman)

December 12, 2005 01:18 PM | Link to this

Thanks Robert.

Gary, You don’t have to know the exact income. The only thing you need to know is a zipcode. I have spent hours talking to recruiters and many of them friends, will tell you - they do not look at college bound kids or kids with money. They are there to recruit and time is money.

At my place of employment, I have yet to hear any of our middle or upper managers say my child has just joined the military. However, all of them have at least one or two kids in college. This has all been in the last 3 years.

By Leia

December 12, 2005 01:32 PM | Link to this

All of the students at my school who had military aspirations who had the excellent grades and “pedigree” went to West Point and the Naval Academy.

By Milo

December 12, 2005 02:08 PM | Link to this

I have read most of this BLOG and so far it’s about 50/50 on who does what. I can only go by what happened to me when I was 18. I was lucky, I did not give my phone number to anyone so I had no phone calls. However, I did get multi letters. Some of them sounded threatening as they would do something by law if I didnt join. I had to actually contact a lawyer and have them tell the recruiter to stop with the letters. As for Karen Armsby, I bet you believe everything GW Bush Jr tells you? I feel for you when you have bury your child.

By oldteacher

December 12, 2005 02:49 PM | Link to this

Milo, you are way off base with that comment to Karen. Are you one of those folks who believes that everyone is entitled to their opinion as long as they agree with you?

By Amazed (Independent Woman)

December 12, 2005 03:07 PM | Link to this

I think Milo is right about Karen. She does seem like a “follower” at all cost. It’s okay to believe in a cause, but blind faith is not good for the soldiers.

It’s like giving someone a drink of Kool-aide(laced with mind altering drugs) and expecting them to do as you tell them. They will follow, but the outcome is any bodies guess.

By Mark

December 12, 2005 03:11 PM | Link to this

Milo - you are full of crap!! A military recruiter has never sent any letter threatening you if you don’t enlist. If you can prove it - bring it on. And to think you actually hired an attorney to stop the recruiter - how stupid do you think we are? Regardless what side of this argument one is on - no one believes a word of your garbage.

As for the economic issues here - as a former recruiting commander I have seen first hand students from $300k homes that didn’t have money for college. Have you ever heard of “house poor?” Some are so concerned with keeping up with the JOneses that they forget to take care of their own families. A recruiter has no way of telling the socio-economic status of a name on the list and the zip code argument just doesn’t sell. Look around your high school and with few exceptions, the full economic range is present. You may not acknowledge it, but it’s there.

By Becky

December 12, 2005 03:13 PM | Link to this

Karen may be a follower but I don’t agree with the ‘at all costs’statement. We are all followers to a certain extent.

By Mark

December 12, 2005 03:14 PM | Link to this

Just an aside for you non-believers. In the early 1990’s, the national average for seniors graduating with a diploma was approximately 65% - yet the percentage of military recruits with diplomas was 98%. The military doesn’t just take anyone - it takes the upper crust of those that are interested and the facts don’t lie.

You may want to check things out before you criticize an institution that you just don’t understand and don’t appreciate.

By Becky

December 12, 2005 03:19 PM | Link to this

Thanks, Mark, for that information. I know that before my nephew joined the army, he had to get his GED.

By Mike

December 12, 2005 03:22 PM | Link to this

Ok. Jeff, stop with the liberal crap. We’re all Americans…even the one’s I don’t agree with. Next, all of you who think it’s great (recuiters calling at home as early as age 15), why are you waiting on the recruiters to call your kids. If you’re in such agreement, your kids should be calling them. Finally, I’ve served 20+ years at this point. My career has had plenty of ups and downs, but I wouldn’t trade the experiences and people I’ve met for anything. But, I understand it isn’t for everyone and nobody should be ashamed or ridiculed because they want to do something else with their life. It’s one thing to support. It’s another to actually serve. Too many people take the easy way out and proudly (and loudly!) do one without even considering the other. If you don’t want to serve, a. Quit trumpeting those that do what you wouldn’t and, b. Let your kids, at the appropriate age, make their own decision.

By Mike

December 12, 2005 03:23 PM | Link to this

I think Milo’s making up the piece about the threatening letters & contacting an attorney as well. Must be one of the Katrina evacuees that just gave testimony - fabricate your onn little set of “facts” to back-up your own off-the-wall opinions.

Let’s face it - teaching your kid to drive a car is infinitely more more threatening to their health than allowing them to join the military. I don’t see anyone advocating taking away their right to drive.

By Becky

December 12, 2005 03:34 PM | Link to this

Please don’t start lumping all the Katrina evacuees in the same bunch. Some of them (my relatives included) were hardworking middle class folks who have already found jobs and put a downpayment on a house here.

By Mike

December 12, 2005 03:46 PM | Link to this

Becky - I’m not lumping them all together. I only referred to the yahoos Cynthia McKinney assembled to testify at her little “hearing”.

Members of Congress were even frustrated at the fabrications being offered up by some of these individuals - fabrications that I equated to Milo’s assertion.

Definitely no insult intended to those hard-working individuals (read: other than those good for nothings still living free in hotels) affected by the storm. I actually live in Ft Lauderdale (remember we got hit by Katrina first along with our own little storm called Wilma). So I can assure you that I have great compassion for the majority of those suffering from the effects of Katrina.

By Becky

December 12, 2005 03:49 PM | Link to this

Thanks for clearing that up, Mike. BTW - I feel the same about those still living in the hotels and expecting the taxpayers to take care of them. They were living on the dole in NO and expect everyone to continue to support them here.

By dubious

December 12, 2005 03:51 PM | Link to this

I’ve always wondered what percentage of students who participate in JROTC (Junior Reserve Officer Training Corps) in high school join the military. Of those who do, what percentage actually become officers? I suspect the the Officer part of the name is completely inappropriate.

By Junebug

December 12, 2005 03:53 PM | Link to this

My friend join the ROTC because he liked the marching band music and went on to retire as a Lt. Colonel in the army.

By Jeff

December 12, 2005 03:56 PM | Link to this

Mike:

As far as MY support-without-signing goes: Doc screwed up when I was a teenager, misdiagnosed me, put me on Zoloft. 8 years later, I CAN’T sign the dotted line because I can’t get through MEPS because of the Zoloft. Trust me, my recruiter was doing everything he could think of to get me in, but there was simply no way.

That is the ONLY reason I’m not training to go to Parris Island right now.

By Jeff

December 12, 2005 03:59 PM | Link to this

Oh, and Mike,

If you happen to know a way to get me past MEPS with the Zoloft on my medical record, PLEASE let me know. I’ll go back to the recruiter, give him the info, and sign tomorrow!

By Peaches

December 12, 2005 04:13 PM | Link to this

For Amazed…do you have any evidence that recruiters are targeting low and middle income students? Or is that just a feeling.

By jennifer

December 12, 2005 04:14 PM | Link to this

My father, his father, and most of my relatives are ex-military. They served their country proudly. My grandfather was in WWII and had to have his face reconstructed after a grenade blew half of it off. However, even my ex-military family can see through what’s going on in this administration.

I’ve already opted-out my children. Some recruiters have crossed the line when it comes to trying to get teens to sign up. They will say anything to get the numbers of enlisted back up.

Why would I allow them to be recruited when we aren’t fighting to protect our country? We are in a country that was a sovereign nation. If we were actually protecting our country I might not feel so strongly about it. But instead we are lead by “evil-doers” who have lied continuously throughout this entire war. They are still saying that Iraq had something to do with 9/11 even though there are numerous reports that have been released defying this. They are still saying there were WMD’s when they know good and well they were destroyed in the 90’s. Sorry, but my children will not serve Bush.

So, here we are in Iraq spreading white phosphorous on the civilians. And the so-called insurgents? Most of them are civilians who want us out of their land and who can blame them? If another country invaded the US I would certainly be out to defend my country no matter what I had to do; even if it meant making bombs out of metal just as they are doing.

If you want to defend our country stop being naive and stop buying from Wal-Mart since nearly everything there is made in China. China and the Arabs own us, we do not own ourselves. To whom can you thank? Why, Mr. Bush, of course.

By jennifer

December 12, 2005 04:19 PM | Link to this

Yes, recruiters are targeting low-income families because they know the kids want money for college. Look at Flint, MI. The vast majority of kids signed up for the military just for that reason. Now they are in Iraq and Afghanistan. Most were told they would never see combat.

By Mike

December 12, 2005 04:36 PM | Link to this

Jennifer - why are the items you are listing specific to Republicans? A little history lesson (of course all those military family members of yours should have been able to educate you on this).

Check Korea (Truman), Viet Nam (Kennedy) and Kosovo (Clinton). These are 3 of the bloodiest conflicts we have ever been involved with - none posing a threat on US soil & all initiated by Democratic presidents.

So how is this administration any different than those that preceeded it?

Stop drinking the Kool Aid

By jennifer

December 12, 2005 04:38 PM | Link to this

Never worshipped Kennedy, either. Or Clinton. Funny how everyone wants to bring that guy into everything when you mention something anti-Bush.

It’s not a Republican/Democrat thing.

By abc

December 12, 2005 04:41 PM | Link to this

When I was in Basic Training my ‘buddy’ had scored a QT of 9 on the ASVAB. That’s NINE. He was obviously mentally handicapped. Recruiters would enlist their own grandmothers if they could get away with it.

By Jake

December 12, 2005 04:45 PM | Link to this

Jennifer - I couldn’t agree with you more on the military/wars part. There’s been very little honor in serving since WWII because the causes are less just. Fifty plus years later we still serve in Korea guarding the South Korean border for them. We withdrew from Vietnam, where we never should have been to begin with, in defeat after 58,000 lives were lost. Now they’re signing up the next generation to fulfill some Bush-Cheney vision of a free and democratic Iraq, a country whose people don’t even understand the concept of secular government. The best guess is that at some point, after we eventually leave, they will return to their 1400 year old traditions.

By KABA

December 12, 2005 04:55 PM | Link to this

Generalizations and insults here about presidents, politics, followers, and kool aid drinkers reveal some bloggers’ ignorance or misinformation. U.S. armed forces have fought in conflicts and wars under many presidents of different party affiliations. Good leaders (including George W. Bush) appeal to rational thinkers, not emotional out-bursters. The rational thinkers can follow the thought process of the good leader. The emotional out-bursters have no leader, no plan, no alternative action, but they are really good at insulting, accusing, demeaning and protesting. Stop and think why you must label someone, and if you would appreciate the same label? It’s easy to be negative, and harder to stand up for what you think is the right thing to do.

By jennifer

December 12, 2005 04:57 PM | Link to this

My grandfather served very proudly in WWII and he earned a number of different medals. However, when he came back he was never the same. He had nightmares until he passed away.

While in Germany he had gone with his troops to look for people in concentration camps. When they were found he could not believe what they looked like and the horrors they had been subjected to. After being given an order to enter homes to look for Nazis he went down into a darkened basement. He couldn’t see anything but he felt someone breathe on the back of his neck. He shot in the dark, picked up the body and carried it outside. It was the body of a 15 year old girl. She was preparing to kill him. However, this never, ever set with him and he cried about it until he passed away.

As for the old traditions of the Middle East - I say let them be.

But if our administration touts that we went into Iraq for humanitarian reasons then why are we not in Sudan? Why are we not worrying about China, North/South Korea? Why are we not invading the Congo? These places have human rights violations going on all of the time.

By jennifer

December 12, 2005 05:00 PM | Link to this

While we have fought in wars under many presidents from different political affiliations I have to tell you that the reasons we were given to invade Iraq were false and I will not support Bush. Sorry, but his thought process only seems to be about what’s best for him, his cronies, and their wallets as they get fatter and fatter off of this war.

By Hmm

December 12, 2005 05:00 PM | Link to this

I support the military. I would support my child’s decision to join the military. If he decided to be a recruiter though, I just might have an issue with that, and I would question the tactics used if they went overboad. I’m not anti-military at all. Recruiters from all around the country have been called out on their unprofessional behavior. One of the local tv stations even played a recorded message a recruiter left on a potential recruits answering machine, after she backed out of her decision to join. The recruiter resorted to calling her names, insulting her appearance, and her attitude. Recruiters, these days, seem to give the military a bad name. They don’t need folks to bad-mouth them, or have anti-military sentiment, they’re doing it all by themselves.
And, it’s those bad recruiters that are ruining it. I’m sure there are some decent and professional recruiters out there, but according to other parents, frequent news headlines, and complaints, the recruiters are sinking lower and lower. Pretty they’ll be right down there with car salesmen.

By A vet (military) teacher

December 12, 2005 05:09 PM | Link to this

I graduated from H.S. in 1980, went into the army for the college money and wound up liking it so much that I stayed in for 20 years. My M.O.S. was 11M4hv. I was a grunt for all of you civilians out there. When I retired in 2000 I attended college and I am now a certified teacher here in GA. I made it through one war and am a better man because of it. As far as danger goes I have more childhood friends who are either dead or in jail. Most of my army buddies are doing okay. You have to leave the nest eventually…

By tired

December 13, 2005 08:13 AM | Link to this

My son,ten years ago at fifteen, expressed an interest in joining the military after some recruiters spoke at his high school. I had him speak to a recruiter at each branch of the armed forces. He decided to put off anything until graduation. Ten years later I still get phone calls and mail from recruiters. I have countless times asked to be removed from their call lists and mail lists to no avail. Since this war with Iraq started the calls have increased to about one or two per week. Enough already!

By Lisa

December 13, 2005 09:18 AM | Link to this

I served honorably and faithfully for 20 years in the US Army. I completed my Associates, Bachelors, and Masters while on Active Duty. Being a part of the Armed Forces gave me such a sense of accomplishment. I don’t have a problem with recruters being in the schools and I wouldn’t have a problem with a recruiter contacting my son. My husband served faithfully and honorably for 20 years as well. Parents need to realize that their son or daughter is reaching an age where they can make a decision. A decision that should be discussed with them, but ultimately, the decision is theirs to make(if 18 or older). From the comments, I see that most people think it’s okay for other people’s children to make the ultimate sacrifice, but “not mine”. I think all children including mine, should have to serve for a minimum of 3-years. The military provides guidance, leadership, travel, education, and so much more. Believe me, some of the kids I have come into contact with, need some sense of guidance/purpose. Recruiters have a job to do, just like everyone else, the key is research, ask questions. Let’s not lump all recruiters into the “bag” of bad people. Most kids today lack purpose, they aren’t focused, and they don’t have a clue as to what life is all about. With all the bad things in the world today, (drugs, gangs, etc.) I think the military is a good choice. We all should be proud to serve, this is our country, why shouldn’t we all contribute to “our freedom”. Aren’t we all Americans? Let’s stop being hypocrites, waving our flags of support, praising our military for their “sacrifices”, but when the knock is upon our door, we turn off the lights.

By Mike

December 13, 2005 01:13 PM | Link to this

Jeff,

Not taking a shot at you because you did or didn’t serve. Sounds like you wanted to. But I’m dismayed at the number of folks who will take time out of their day to call into conservative talk radio, put yellow ribbon magnets on their cars, etc., but wouldn’t even consider joining the military on their own. Genuine support for my “calling in life” is always appreciated. And I REALLY appreciate it when someone takes the same oath that I have taken. But I’ve talked to too many people that think this war is great and necessary….as long as they (or their children) don’t have to do it. If everyone with a yellow ribbon would go see a recruiter (or their children), we’d have plenty of Soldiers, Sailors, Marines, and Airmen to defeat those that would harm us.

By Laura

December 13, 2005 02:00 PM | Link to this

I have a 15 year old daughter that is in her 2nd year NJRROTC, she has been to Parris Island Marine Boot Camp where she completed real courses, ate w/ the Marines and even slept in the same beds that prior new recruits slept. The students were physically and mentally challenged. I think after her hands on involvement in the military she even at age 15 would be able to make the right decision for herself. I would support her totally.

BTW She would love to have a mature discussion w/ you liberals. I think she could make some of you rethink your views. And “D” I agree w/ you 100%.

By Jeff

December 13, 2005 02:00 PM | Link to this

Mike,

In my case, it’s definetly a CAN NOT, not a WILL NOT.

If I do have the honor of having kids some day, they’ll grow up knowing many things, one of them being simply that serving your country is THE most honorable profession around. Recruiters won’t be caling my house when my kid starts coming of age. I’ll be calling them. (And yes, for those interested, that comment stands even if Hillary -or worse- is in office.)

By Lynn

December 13, 2005 02:57 PM | Link to this

Mark - statistics may prove lots of things, but there are always exceptions. I took the ASVAB in high school to avoid a math test. I had recruiters from all branches repeatedly call my home. Several made outrageous promises, and a few even asked my mother to “make” me sign up. Several called me lazy and unpatriotic because, at the time, I had no interest. At the age of 20, I joined the Navy (mostly to leave a bad home situation). I was one of the best recruits in my class, and had a very rewarding experience for 4 and a half years before I had to be discharged as a disabled veteran. I wholeheartedly support the military, and everything that every military member does for all of us everyday. I also believe that military service would be a great experience for the majority of kids today. I’m sure MOST recruiters are honest and honorable. But many are looking to fill quotas. Phone calls are invasive, there are many better alternatives to getting the military opportunity out there to today’s youth.

By Don

December 14, 2005 08:25 AM | Link to this

You have to love this name calling. It sounds like we have parents that are more than willing to allow their under age teenage children to make a decision regarding entry into the Armed Forces. Its good to hear that they are ready to serve their country. No shame in that game, but remember the original question. Should a 15 year old be targeted for a recruiting drive. Parents that wish to leave their phone # for recruiters should be allowed and no foul called. That should more than make up for the current and projected shortage of military personnel. Especially where the fighting is going on. Myself? Until I see a list of political, civic leaders, clergyman, CEO’s and other prominent citizens children signing up my answer is * H… No!*

By Jeff

December 14, 2005 08:58 AM | Link to this

Don,

That brand of cynicism is exactly the reason recruiters are having to go to such drastic measures to do their jobs. And, ironically, just as childish as the name calling you complained about. I’ll give you a great example: When I was growing up (as the oldest of 3 boys), my parents would tell all of us to clean up the living room. We would sit there and sit there and sit there saying “I’ll start picking up as soon as he does”. Guess what? Parents had to go to drastic measures - in our case, my dad’s work belt - before anything got done and by that point, we could barely move and my parents were incredibly upset.

With your “I’ll let my kid sign up when they let their’s” attitude, ultra similar things are going to happen. It might be 20 years or 50 years or even 5 years down the road, but your attitude will lead directly to a reinstatement of the draft - something VERY FEW of us want. I don’t even want a draft, I’m a COMPLETE proponent of an all volunteer force. As Doolittle once said “Nothing is stronger than the heart of a volunteer.”

If a child doesn’t want in, that’s his or her choice, and they are free to make it. I simply say that the best thing parents can do is be supportive and loving either way. Don’t discourage your kids because of your own politics. (Note that I’m NOT saying you have to ENCOURAGE them either.)

Let the recruiters make present their side. Let someone else present your side. (You or a close friend would be an undue influence, in the interest of complete fairness in the debate.) Then let the child (adult at the time of enlistment btw) decide on their own.

By Don

December 14, 2005 09:37 AM | Link to this

Once again you misunderstand me. I neither implied or suggested the response given above. These were the heart felt replies of parents not their children.

As far as I’m concerned more can be done through our civic leaders and politicians at warding off a military action than feeding the war machine. What can spur this type of response better than their own childrens welfare being at stake?

Childish I think not.

By the way what branch of service did you serve in?

By Jeff

December 14, 2005 10:40 AM | Link to this

As noted in previous posts, I CAN NOT serve. Medical PDQ, resulting from things that were far beyond my control.

Had I had my way, I would be training to be at Parris Island, SC next Labor Day.

As I tell the kids in my class: Violence is RARELY the answer. It IS occassionally the answer though, and when you absolutely must fight, you should. In the case of the War on Terror, I would MUCH rather the violence be happening in Afghanistan and Iraq than in Atlanta and Cartersville. And that is basically the choice we and our leaders face: Prosecute a war on a battlefield AWAY from our civilians, or allow that battlefield to be our civilians’ backyards. We’ve SEEN what they can do - they brought down the World Trade Center, or have you forgotten? Would you rather bomb Iraq or have the Bank of America building be next?

Say what you want about being in Iraq, but as for me, I’d MUCH rather keep our troops over there and have 2,000+ deaths in TWO YEARS compared to 1,000+ in TWO HOURS.

By Don

December 14, 2005 11:44 AM | Link to this

I see, you havent served.

I have.

Well I see no need to exchange dialogue on this topic.

Talk to you again when the topic is, lets see….

Blueberry muffins.

By 0701

December 14, 2005 11:57 AM | Link to this

Well, I served four years, and I’m opposed to the military having access to these kids and their personal records.

But maybe I have a little more faith in the kids than you do. If this country is neccessitated into a genuine war, and not another made up one, these kids will volunteer all on their own.

By abc

December 14, 2005 12:11 PM | Link to this

I’m a veteran, I have one son entering the military shortly, and I’m opposed to military recruiters having access to my youngest through his school. The school should release privacy information to NOONE.

In the news today: Pentagon investigates a group of Quakers who had meetings regarding this topic, citing them as a ‘threat’.

Pentagon Investigates Americans

By Don

December 14, 2005 12:33 PM | Link to this

ABC tell them again….

Your absolutely right!

By jim dumond

December 14, 2005 12:36 PM | Link to this

Well you know how terroristic those old Quakers are.

By Laura

December 14, 2005 12:42 PM | Link to this

My Daughter (15) which in the JROTC for her 2nd year has NEVER received the 1st call from a Recruiter. So I have a hard time believing these Recruiters are harassing people. Or maybe there has been no contact due to my above poverty status.;)

By jim dumond

December 14, 2005 12:45 PM | Link to this

Maybe they just feel they’ve already got her.

Ever thought of that sweetheart?

By Laura

December 14, 2005 01:00 PM | Link to this

And why would they think that? The Recruiters that have visited the school did not even approach her. She was the one that went up to them asking for information.

So no Sweetheart never thought of that.

By jim dumond

December 14, 2005 01:10 PM | Link to this

Well perhaps I’m wrong but let’s review what you said.

1: My Daughter (15) which in the JROTC for her 2nd year

conclusion: she joined at 14, recruiters are targeting 15 year olds.

2: NEVER received the 1st call from a Recruiter.

Conclusion: uhm, think they may know she’s already involved and they will have access to her for some time to make the pitch?

Maybe, just maybe sweetheart should consider.

By abc

December 14, 2005 01:16 PM | Link to this

Females are less than 15% of the military population. They’re not sought after as much as male recruits, so it’s natural that parents of females would encounter less harrassment from recruiters.

By Laura

December 14, 2005 01:24 PM | Link to this

So I guess the different branches of the Military all know which/if any branch she is considering???? My daughter is almost 16 so would you not say they have had plenty of time to contact her @ age 15? And 15 was the topic. Correct?

And I am just voicing my experience. Not having a spitting contest w/ you sweetheart.

By jim dumond

December 14, 2005 01:30 PM | Link to this

Recent reports indicate that growing opposition to the Iraq war, as well as fear of death or injury in a questionable cause, are beginning to have an effect on US Army and National Guard recruitment. This, despite bleak economic prospects for great numbers of youth and more enticing bonuses offered to all recruits. The Army, which has met its manpower goals every year since 1990, has fallen behind in 2005. Through the first five months of a budget year that begins in October, the army is about 6 percent behind schedule toward fulfilling this year’s goal. The Army is not only already stretched thin by the occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan, it has plans to expand by 30,000 soldiers. The Army National Guard is having even greater difficulty. The Guard wanted to recruit 63,000 new members this year, in part to make up for a shortfall in 2004. However, four months into the budget year, by the end of January, it had signed up only 12,800 men and women, 24 percent below its target. The US Marine Corps failed to meet its recruiting goal for the second straight month in February, the first time it has fallen short for two successive months in more than a decade. The Marines missed their objective last month by some 6.5 percent. A spokesman for the US Marine Corps Recruiting Command told a journalist, “It is a challenging recruiting environment right now.â€? Young blacks and women in particular “are marching away from offers to join the army,â€? according to an article by Robert Burns of Associated Press, a trend that suggests “the military’s largest service may be entering a prolonged recruiting slump at a time when it is trying to expand its ranks.â€? Another article, appearing in the Washington Post, notes that the percentage of new African-American army recruits “has slipped dramatically over the past five years.â€? In fiscal 2000, blacks made up 23.5 percent of army recruits; that number has now fallen to less than 14 percent, a 40 percent decrease. The percentage of female recruits has fallen during that same period by 23 percent, from 22 to 17 percent. Among blacks, the unpopularity of the war is cited as the primary reason for the drop in enlistment. A report completed in August 2004 by GfK Custom Research on “US Military Imageâ€? concluded: “More African Americans identify having to fight for a cause they don’t support as a barrier to military service.â€? Stars and Stripes, the military newspaper, notes that the Defense Department’s own survey, conducted last May, indicated that “administration policies and the Iraq war have lowered the propensity of black youth to enlist, particularly in the Army and Marine Corps, the ground forces taking most of the casualties.â€? The publication quoted the Defense Department’s Youth Poll report as saying: “Black youth reported being more negatively affected…. Black youth were less supportive of US troops’ presence in Iraq, less likely to feel the war was justified, more disapproving of the Bush administration’s handling of foreign affairs and more disapproving of its use of US military forces than were whites or Hispanics.â€? Interviewed by the Washington Post, Edward Dorn, a former US undersecretary of defense for personnel and readiness, commented, “Whites strongly supported the invasion; blacks did not. It follows that the number of young whites enlisting would go up, while the numbers of young blacks enlisting would go down.â€? With polls showing a solid majority of Americans now considering the Iraq invasion a mistake, Dorn predicted a troubled future for the army: “This will have an effect on white enlistments in the coming months.â€? A study conducted by Millward Brown, a marketing and research firm, found that among all groups, objections to the war, casualties and incidents like the torture scandal at Abu Ghraib prison were taking a toll on recruiting efforts: “Reasons for not considering military service are increasingly based on objections to the Iraq situation and aversion to the military.â€? The findings of both the GfK and Millward Brown studies on young people’s attitudes toward the US military cannot be heartening to the political and media establishment. Despite an unprecedented propaganda barrage since the September 11 terrorist attacks, aimed at whipping up the American population into a frenzy about the need to make the world “safeâ€? by conquering it, American youth are increasingly unenthusiastic about the military. The GfK report, which compares the views of young people in 2000 and 2004, notes that attitudes toward the Army among all groups of American youth have grown more negative in recent years. In their summary of findings, the report’s authors write: “The Army’s recruiting mission in a post 9/11 world is an extremely difficult one…. The option of military service causes inner conflict in today’s youth…. College still ‘wins’ as the preferential choice for most young adults.â€? Four in ten youth indicated a willingness “to fight for my countryâ€? depending on the cause; only 22 percent indicated a willingness to fight for their country “for any cause.â€? Only 10 percent thought “everyone should serve in the military.â€? The leading single reason—cited by 42 percent—for enlisting in the armed forces, among those not averse to joining, is “money for college.â€? Duty came in second, with 34 percent, and the opportunity to travel and see the world third, with 21 percent.

By jim dumond

December 14, 2005 01:34 PM | Link to this

Glad we’re not spitting sweetheart,

My point was that since they have access to her personal information from the school, They have the information that she’s already showing interest in a military career. In other words they know she’s jrotc.

I assure you that before graduation she will be approached about a military career.

By Taylor

December 14, 2005 02:27 PM | Link to this

I am a native Georgian and have served in the Navy for 8 years. Aside from attending outstanding service schools (nuclear power) and serving on two aircraft carriers, I have earned my B.A. and currently working on my M.Ed., all financed by military benefits.

I attended several colleges in Georgia prior to joining the military, with little success due to lack of maturity, discipline, and financial support. Had I considered military service after high school, I may have saved myself $20,000 in student loans.

Yes, there are horror stories about military recruiters misrepresenting what a potential recruit can expect, but when reported, those recruiters are dealt with harshly. The truth is that military service is a viable option for high school students to consider, and they deserve to know their options before making crucial life decisions.

By Laura

December 14, 2005 02:55 PM | Link to this

Jim, I do agree there will be contact sooner or later. I honestly can’t believe there has not already been.

My Daughter plans and was encouraged by her Commander to go to college and then if she so desires join the Military. She is very smart and mature @ age 15.

Have a great day!