(Via Milinet)
Date: July 5, 2000
Subject: The Personnel Crisis is Not About Selling Fruit Loops
>========================<
Attached References:
[1] Greg Jaffe, "New Report Says Military's Advertising Is
Ineffective, Reaches Wrong Audience," Wall Street Journal, July
6,
2000
>========================<
Captain Damon's critique of the Army's analysis of its own
disastrous
retention rates for captains [Comment #365] triggered a flow of
emails culminating in Herbert Fenster's call to end
marginalization
of the military by reinstating the draft [#369], among other
things.
This was followed by a counter-argument from a conservative
staff
member of the House of Representatives [#370].
The following two emails present additional pro and con cases on
question of reinstating the draft. Some may argue that a debate
over
returning to the draft is useless in today's political
environment,
but the question keeps cropping up among thoughtful people who
are
deeply concerned about the rapidly deteriorating state of the
U.S.
military.
One of the recurring themes in the debate over recruiting and
retention is a perception of a growing disconnect between the
military and the larger society, what Fenster called
"marginalization."
The first email is from Col Mark Pizzo, an active duty Marine
assigned to the National Defense University. While he does not
agree
with Fenster's argument about "marginalization," he also rejects
the
staffer's libertarian views. Pizzo nevertheless supports
Fenster's
call for the draft by laying out the benefits universal military
service would have for the entire nation.
The second is from Emery Nelson, a proud citizen, former
soldier, and
father. His case against the draft boils down to the basic
mistrust
of big government and institutionalized power that led the
Framers of
the Constitution to limit a standing army and establish a
general
system of checks and balances to protect the individual from
abuses
by his or her government. In this context, Nelson argues that
re-instituting the draft in isolation will merely serve to paper
over
and endorse the leadership failures that have created the
personnel
crisis to begin with and thereby eliminate any possibility for
real
reform.
----[ Email #1: Case for the Draft by Col Pizzo, USMC]------
It might be only natural to return from a grand Fourth of July
that
represents the "spirit of America" and get "fired-up" over the
discussions of Mr. Fenster and a congressional staffer.
Both pieces hit the hard points of a very contentions and
spirited
issue, how to meet the military needs of our country. I do not
buy
into the "marginalization" discussion for the very reasons that
are
expressed in comment #370. At the same time, characterizing
universal
service as "demeaning labor" and suggesting WWII and the Cold
War
were anomaly is both short sited, and definitely "libertarian."
Since
being "united in a common goal, just won't fill the bill,"
perhaps we
should change our name from the United States to Individualism
Island.
I strongly endorse a solution that calls for Universal Service.
Saying this is easy, structuring the answer is much more
difficult,
BUT POSSIBLE. Actually, we need a revolution in human affairs.
The
culture of our nation has changed and we must recognize those
changes
and restructure the military personal system accordingly.
For starters, people are "homesteaders," most couples pursue
professional careers, families are starting later in life, and
the
18-hour-a-day-365 days-a-week work ethic is passé. Globalization
and
4th Generation Warfare demand a different personal system with
different management policies.
The bedrock of the restructure, I argue, is universal service.
(For
the sake of time and space, I would refer anyone interested in
"an
approach" to read my proposal in the April 5-12, 1999 issue of
Insight on the News magazine.)
The benefits to the country E Pluribus Unum. Society and the
military will be brought closer together, as will the nation as
a
whole. All classes of our society can contribute service to the
nation. We can achieve the diversity we seek in the military.
Some of
our most promising high-school graduates headed for college will
be
motivated to seek officer programs and become future leaders of
our
military. The infrastructure of our country will be repaired,
the
homeless cared for and cities cleaned up. With a bit of luck and
the
right application of this service, we could start winning
significant
battles in our war on drugs. Our armed forces will be stronger
and
more ready to meet the daily needs of global diplomacy, and we
will
have a reservoir of experienced manpower if we have to execute
our
national security strategy. While some bright young men and
women
brought in by universal service would stay in the military, most
would return to civil life after a short period in uniform or
service
to their nation. These men and women would continue to serve in
a
variety of ways as leaders who had proved their mettle in a
tough
school, as a class of American with an emotional stake in the
nation
as a whole and as citizens who are savvy in military matters.
They
also would understand the weight of a decision to send Americans
into
battle. It is time to revitalize President Kennedy's challenge
to ask
what we can do for our country.
----[ Email #2: Case Against the Draft by Emery Nelson]------
Emery Nelson
Citizen, father, and a former soldier who loves his country
Every time we have a personnel crisis in the military, the
answer is
too force young men into service.
The so called "fairness" issue is complete BS.
We've had the draft before and I don't remember it being
particularly
fair. I know that many think that somehow it would be different
"this
time" but as a student of history I doubt it.
If we reinstate the draft, you can also forget about any
worthwhile
changes taking place in the Military.
The Draft would merely reinforce the behavior of the short
sighted
political and military Leadership that created the problems and
end
any hope for constructive change.
But since we are speaking of coercion, perhaps it would be
better if
our leaders were forced to understand why young men don't want
to
serve and how come so many who are already in uniform are
choosing to
leave. Reinstating the draft will give the leadership no reason
to
correct current problems and will only encourage their continued
incompetence. As the father of two teenage boys that are
probably not
going to college, I reject the idea of some nameless bureaucracy
or
bureaucrat using force to cover up his sins.
And make no mistake about it, the draft is about force used by
the
federal government. If you don't believe it just see what
happens if
it's reinstated. Those who refuse to serve will have a SWAT team
of
Draft Marshals kick in their front door in the middle of the
night
and a gun put in their face while others truss you up the
draftee
like an animal. At a press conference the bureaucrat in charge,
will
claim, "it's voluntary for those selected, as long as they show
up at
the induction center." He will say it with a straight face. When
questioned, he will sight the example of our "voluntary tax
system."
I won't have my children forced to fight in the Balkans or
anywhere
else where the security of the United States is not threatened.
If
they freely chose to go into the military on their own, then so
be
it, but my message to the present administration, Congress and
the
military leadership is, when you bomb aspirin factories to cover
up
questionable activities and then gorge congressional districts
on
F-22s and V-22s (oink, oink), you lose me and the rights too my
boys.
I will never trust them with my sons lives, unless the security
of
the country is threatened.
Emery Nelson
-----[end]------
There is clearly merit to both arguments. Pizzo appeals
primarily to
the welfare of the nation as a whole, whereas Nelson rests his
argument on protecting the welfare of the individual. Each
recognizes the legitimacy of the other perspective, but a
difference
in emphasis leads to opposite conclusions. Finally, their
divergence
in opinion is grounded in a tension among moral values - the
ideas of
service, duty, and subordination of the individual, on the one
hand,
are opposed the ideas of protecting the inalienable rights and
liberties of the individual on the other. This conflict is made
more
complicated by the fact that protection of individual rights and
liberty via a system of checks and balances is the supreme moral
value underpinning the design of our constitution, and thus the
liberty of each individual is a reflection of the welfare of the
entire nation.
Abstractly, therefore, the question of the draft opposes the
welfare
of the "whole" to that the "parts." This creates the classical
conundrum of reconciling conflicts among incommensurable
categories -
the problem of commensurating the incommensurable, to borrow
the
memorable phrase coined by Garret Hardin in his classic essay,
the
"Tragedy of the Commons" [Science, 12/13/68]. The common
denominator
in this kind of problem is that it defies neat Cartesian
solutions or
top-down arguments from design - what politicians, ivory tower
wonks,
and policy elites fatuously refer to as 'silver bullets.'
One reason why the question of returning to the draft keeps
resurrecting itself derives from the obvious fact that the twin
crises of recruiting and retention crises are not resolving
themselves, and may in fact be worsening, despite pay raises and
blatant appeals to self-interest. This is evident in Greg
Jaffe's
report in the Wall Street Journal below [Reference 1], which
describes the Pentagon's most recent silver bullet.
A team of advertising consultants hired by the Secretary of
Defense
to study the effectiveness of its recruiting strategy has
concluded
the obvious: namely that $265 million worth of "be all you can
be"
advertising appeals to self interest are not working to attract
recruits.
The report, which is based at least in part on the highly
questionable methodology of using focus groups to probe and test
for
opinions, suggests the existence of a disconnect between the
society
and military. It says the biggest recruiting challenge is to
reach a
generation of teenagers whose parents came of age after the
draft
ended and have no connection to the military. In the words of
one
author, "The disconnect between many teens and the military is
incredible" [e.g., see the reference to "Full Metal Jacket" in
last
two paragraphs of Reference 1]. Consequently the advertising
strategy needs to be refocused.
The recommendations for re-focusing include an advertising
strategy
that would -
1. De-emphasize appeals that stress cash for college.
2. Give a clearer sense of what the service does and how they do
it
to parents, teachers, and potential recruits.
3. Stress patriotism and the benefits of discipline and pride.
4. Give young people a clear definition of the U.S. military's
post-Cold War mission
5. Target special age or ethnic groups and start early, begin
targeting kids as young as 12 years old.
6. Develop distinct brand identities for the services, as
exemplified
by the current crop of Marine Corps ads
The fact that leadership in the Defense Department had to pay
advertising consultants big bucks to "discover" such obvious
recommendations as 1 thru 4 suggests real disconnect is between
the
leaders and an understanding of their job descriptions.
The clinical use of "targeting" in Recommendation 5 smells like
some
kind of Orwellian propaganda that, taken to its limits, would
result
in ideas like the Hitler Youth.
Recommendation 6 takes the cake, in my view - Brand Names for
the
Services - give me a break.
We are not selling Fruit Loops or are we?
Maybe the real problem is amateurism.
The answer to question of if, not to mention how, we should
return to
the draft should be evolved in the larger context of reforming
the
entire personnel system. At the heart of the recruiting and
retention issue is a question of leadership and professionalism,
particularly officer selection, training, and promotion
criteria, but
also the way we organize our forces for military operations in
the
changing conditions of the 21st Century, particularly with
respect to
the emerging requirements of 4th Generation War. [Note readers
can
find a special section on 4th Generation War at
http://www.d-n-i.net/ ]
Military service is not and should not be about selling Fruit
Loops.
Rather than paying outside dilettantes to produce vapid market
research, wouldn't it be better to listen to thoughtful
professionals
on the inside who have made an effort to study the recruiting
and
retention crisis from the perspective of what is needed in their
profession of arms?
For readers interested in more serious analyses of the personnel
problems that are eviscerating contemporary American military
culture, I recommend you start with the Tillson Report [Comment
# 367
- and attached PDF file] and the Vandergriff Report [i.e.,
"Careers
and Cohesion for Effective 21st Century Leadership," which is
available at
http://www.belisarius.com ].
Chuck Spinney
[Disclaimer: In accordance with 17 U.S.C. 107, this material is
distributed without profit or payment to those who have
expressed a
prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit
research
and educational purposes only.]
-------------[Reference 1]----------
Wall Street Journal
July 6, 2000
New Report Says Military's Advertising Is Ineffective, Reaches
Wrong Audience
By Greg Jaffe, Staff Reporter of The Wall Street Journal
The military's recruiting ads aren't all they could be. In fact,
they
aren't even close, according to a new report that is causing the
armed services to rethink how they spend their $265 million
annual
advertising budget.
As one its key recommendations, the report urges the services to
de-emphasize dangling college cash -- a major recruiting pitch
for
the past two decades -- and instead work harder on developing
distinct brand identities, as exemplified by the current crop of
Marine Corps ads.
The biggest challenge, according to the report, is reaching a
generation whose parents came of age after the draft ended and
whose
connection with the military is scant to none. "The disconnect
between many teens and the military is incredible," says Bryan
Flood,
a political-advertising consultant and one of five researchers
on the
report. "In focus groups with kids, they were asking questions
like,
'Can I eat chicken in the military? Can I drive a car? Can I go
home?'. . . They need to give young people a clear sense of who
they
are and what they have to offer."
Commissioned by Defense Secretary William Cohen and set to be
released to Congress this week, the report was prepared by a
bipartisan team of consultants from two advertising agencies,
Sawyer,
Miller & Co. and Murphy, Pintak, Gautier Hudome, both based in
Washington, D.C. It couldn't come at a better time. The Navy and
the
Air Force are now seeking bids for their advertising contracts,
together valued at about $650 million over the next five years.
The
Army, which last week selected Leo Burnett Worldwide Inc. to
develop
its new campaign, is working on a new strategy that will be
unveiled
this winter.
Typical of recent Army ads is one featuring a picture of a giant
calculator. Under the picture, the text says: "Learn that a
reward
means more when you earn it. Now earn up to $50,000 for
college." The
report's authors argue that that focus belittles the training
the
military itself provides, while boosting the profile of the
competition: community colleges and universities.
Moreover, in targeting kids who need money for college, the
services
are chasing a rapidly shrinking market. College loans and grants
have
become increasingly available in recent years.
The report's recommendation that the services concentrate on
developing "brand identities" is aimed at giving potential
recruits,
parents and teachers a clearer sense of what each of the
services
does and how they do it. It also maintains the services must
start
early, targeting kids as young as 12 years old.
The report recommends that some ads stress patriotism while
others
emphasize the individual benefits of discipline and pride.
Whatever
they do, the ads must "give young people a clear definition of
the
U.S. military's post-Cold War mission," the report states.
As an example of what works, the authors cite recent ads touting
the
Marines as an elite group of warriors and characterizing service
in
the corps as a life-transforming experience. In one magazine ad,
a
sweating Marine is pushing to finish a grueling run. The caption
beneath reads, "Running won't kill you. You'll pass out first."
In
larger print, the ad goes on to promise: "The Change Is
Forever."
The approach appears to be paying off. The Marines are the only
one
of the four services to meet their recruiting and retention
goals for
the past five years. They spent only about $1,080 last year on
advertising and enlistment bonuses to land each of their
recruits,
compared with the Army's $3,200.
The report also takes the services to task for wasting cash by
advertising almost exclusively on national TV, particularly on
televised sporting events. The majority of that viewing audience
is
too old to enlist, the report notes. It says the services can
get a
lot more bang for the buck using the Internet as well as
far-less
expensive cable and regional TV advertising.
Currently, the services use the same basic ads to recruit
18-year-olds fresh out of high school and 24-year-olds with
years of
work experience. A Hispanic youth from Texas and a white male
from
the South also see the same ads. The result, the report
concludes, is
that some groups -- like Hispanics, who make up 14% of the
country's
teen population but only 8% of the military -- aren't being
reached.
Even with sharply targeted advertising, changing young people's
attitudes toward the military could be a very slow process. The
report's authors got a personal taste of that when they asked
teens
in focus groups what movie had most formed their view of the
military.
While the uplifting World War II epic "Saving Private Ryan" was
being
released on video at just about that time, very few of the teens
mentioned it. The most popular answer was "Full Metal Jacket,"
Stanley Kubrick's dark portrait of the Vietnam-era military
released
more than a decade earlier. That movie, with its abusive drill
sergeants, boot-camp suicides and relentless violence, seemed to
confirm the teens' worst impressions of military life.
"In every briefing we did at the Pentagon, we mentioned the
popularity of 'Full Metal Jacket,'" Mr. Flood says. "It
exemplifies
what the problem is for the military and it shows there are not
going
to be any quick fixes." [Comment: If "Full Metal Jacket" is so
influential in terms of 'negative' advertising, it would be nice
if
Mr. Flood explained why the Marine's have the least recruiting
problems, given that the "Full Metal Jacket" is about the
'horrors'
of Marine boot camp as well as Vietnam.]
-
