Growing Problem for Military Recruiters: Parents

[jkm2500 0]

From the NYTimes:http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/03/nyregion/03recruit.html?th&emc=th

June 3, 2005

Growing Problem for Military Recruiters: Parents
By DAMIEN CAVE
Rachel Rogers, a single mother of four in upstate New York, did not worry about the presence of National Guard recruiters at her son's high school until she learned that they taught students how to throw hand grenades, using baseballs as stand-ins. For the last month she has been insisting that administrators limit recruiters' access to children.

Orlando Terrazas, a former truck driver in Southern California, said he was struck when his son told him that recruiters were promising students jobs as musicians. Mr. Terrazas has been trying since September to hang posters at his son's public school to counter the military's message.

Meanwhile, Amy Hagopian, co-chairwoman of the Parent-Teacher-Student Association at Garfield High School in Seattle, has been fighting against a four-year-old federal law that requires public schools to give military recruiters the same access to students as college recruiters get, or lose federal funding. She also recently took a few hours off work to stand beside recruiters at Garfield High and display pictures of injured American soldiers from Iraq.

"We want to show the military that they are not welcome by the P.T.S.A. in this building," she said. "We hope other P.T.S.A.'s will follow."

Two years into the war in Iraq, as the Army and Marines struggle to refill their ranks, parents have become boulders of opposition that recruiters cannot move.

Mothers and fathers around the country said they were terrified that their children would have to be killed - or kill - in a war that many see as unnecessary and without end.

Around the dinner table, many parents said, they are discouraging their children from serving.

At schools, they are insisting that recruiters be kept away, incensed at the access that they have to adolescents easily dazzled by incentive packages and flashy equipment.

A Department of Defense survey last November, the latest, shows that only 25 percent of parents would recommend military service to their children, down from 42 percent in August 2003.

"Parents," said one recruiter in Ohio who insisted on anonymity because the Army ordered all recruiters not to talk to reporters, "are the biggest hurdle we face."

Legally, there is little a parent can do to prevent a child over 18 from enlisting. But in interviews, recruiters said that it was very hard to sign up a young man or woman over the strong objections of a parent.

The Pentagon - faced with using only volunteers during a sustained conflict, an effort rarely tried in American history - is especially vexed by a generation of more activist parents who have no qualms about projecting their own views onto their children.

Lawrence S. Wittner, a military historian at the State University of New York, Albany, said today's parents also had more power.

"With the draft, there were limited opportunities for avoiding the military, and parents were trapped, reduced to draft counseling or taking their children to Canada," he said. "But with the volunteer armed force, what one gets is more vigorous recruitment and more opportunities to resist."

Some of that opportunity was provoked by the very law that was supposed to make it easier for recruiters to reach students more directly. No Child Left Behind, which was passed by Congress in 2001, requires schools to turn over students' home phone numbers and addresses unless parents opt out. That is often the spark that ignites parental resistance.

Recruiters, in interviews over the past six months, said that opposition can be fierce. Three years ago, perhaps 1 or 2 of 10 parents would hang up immediately on a cold call to a potential recruit's home, said a recruiter in New York who, like most others interviewed, insisted on anonymity to protect his career. "Now," he said, "in the past year or two, people hang up all the time. "

Several recruiters said they had even been threatened with violence.

"I had one father say if he saw me on his doorstep I better have some protection on me," said a recruiter in Ohio. "We see a lot of hostility."

Military officials are clearly concerned. In an interview last month, Maj. Gen. Michael D. Rochelle, commander of Army recruiting, said parental resistance could put the all-volunteer force in jeopardy. When parents and other influential adults dissuade young people from enlisting, he said, "it begs the question of what our national staying power might be for what certainly appears to be a long fight."

In response, the Army has rolled out a campaign aimed at parents, with television ads and a Web site that includes videos of parents talking about why they supported their children's decision to enlist. General Rochelle said that it was still too early to tell if it is making a difference.

But Col. David Slotwinski, a former chief of staff for Army recruiting, said that the Army faced an uphill battle because many baby boomer parents are inclined to view military service negatively, especially during a controversial war.

"They don't realize that they have a role in helping make the all-volunteer force successful," said Colonel Slotwinski, who retired in 2004. "If you don't, you're faced with the alternative, and the alternative is what they were opposed to the most, mandatory service."

Many of the mothers and fathers most adamant about recruitment do have a history of opposition to Vietnam. Amy Hagopian, 49, a professor of public health at the University of Washington, and her husband, Stephen Ludwig, 57, a carpenter, said that they and many parents who contest recruiting at Garfield High in Seattle have a history of antiwar sentiment and see their efforts as an extension of their pacifism.

But, he added, parents are also reacting to what they see as the military's increased intrusion into the lives of their children.

"The recruiters are in your face, in the library, in the lunchroom," he said. "They're contacting the most vulnerable students and recruiting them to go to war."

The access is legally protected. As recently as 2000, said one former recruiter in California, it was necessary to dig through the trash at high schools and colleges to find students' names and phone numbers. But No Child Left Behind mandates that school districts can receive federal funds only if they grant military recruiters "the same access to secondary school students" as is provided to colleges and employers.

So although the Garfield P.T.S.A. voted last month to ban military recruiters from the school and its 1,600 students, the Seattle school district could not sign on to the idea without losing at least $15 million in federal education funds.

"The parents have chosen to take a stand, but we still have to comply with No Child Left Behind," said Peter Daniels, communications director for the district. In Whittier, a city of 85,000 10 miles southeast of East Los Angeles, about a dozen families last September accused the district of failing to properly advise parents that they had the right to deny recruiters access to their children's personal information.

Mr. Terrazas, 51, the father of a Whittier High School junior, said the notification was buried among other documents in a preregistration packet sent out last summer.

"It didn't say that the military has access to students' information," he said. "It just said to write a letter if you didn't want your kid listed in a public directory."

A few years ago, after Sept. 11, the issue might not have gotten Mr. Terrazas's attention. His father served in World War II, his brother in Vietnam, and he said that he had always supported having a strong military able to defend the country.

But after the war in Iraq yielded no weapons of mass destruction, and as the death toll has mounted, he cannot reconcile the pride he feels at seeing marines deliver aid after the tsunami in Asia with his concern over the effort in Baghdad, he said.

"Because of the situation we're in now, I would not want my son to serve," he said. "It's the policy that I'm against, not the military."

After Mr. Terrazas and several other parents expressed their concern about the school's role in recruitment, the district drafted a new policy. On May 23, it introduced a proposed opt-out form for the district's 14,000 students.

The form, said Ron Carruth, Whittier's assistant superintendent, includes an explanation of the law, and boxes that parents can check to indicate they do not want information on their child released to either the military, colleges, vocational schools or other sources of recruitment. Mr. Carruth said that next year the district would also prohibit all recruiters from appearing in classrooms, and keep the military ones from bringing equipment like Humvees onto school grounds, a commonly used recruitment tool.

He said that some of the information from the 11-by-17-inch poster that Mr. Terrazas sought to post, including how to verify recruiters' claims about financial benefits, will be part of a pamphlet created by the school for students.

And at least a dozen other districts in the area, Mr. Carruth added, up from three in November, are considering similar plans.

Unlike Mr. Terrazas, Ms. Rogers, 37, of High Falls in the upper Hudson Valley, had not thought much about the war before she began speaking out in her school district. She had been "politically apathetic," she said. She did not know about No Child Left Behind's reporting requirements, nor did she opt out.

When her son, Jonah, said he was thinking of sitting out a gym class that was to be led by National Guard recruiters, Ms. Rogers, who works part time as a clerk at the local motor vehicles office and receives public assistance, said she told him not to be "a rebel without a cause."

"In this world," she recalled telling him, "we need a strong military."

But then she heard from her son that the class was mandatory, and that recruiters were handing out free T-shirts and key chains - "Like, 'Hey, let's join the military. It's fun,' " she said.

First she called the Rondout Valley High School to complain about the "false advertising," she said, then her congressman.

On May 24, at the first school board meeting since the gym class, she read aloud from a recruiting handbook that advised recruiters on ways to gain maximum access to schools, including offering doughnuts. A high school senior, Katie Coalla, 18, stood up at one point and tearfully defended the recruiters, receiving applause from the crowd of about 70, but Ms. Rogers persisted.

"Pulling in this need for heartstrings patriotic support is clouding the issue," she said. "The point is not whether I support the troops. It's about whether a well-organized propaganda machine should be targeted at children and enforced by the schools."

Laura Cummins, in Accord, N.Y., contributed reporting for this article.

edited to add url

The primary purpose of the Armed Forces is to prepare for and to prevail in combat should the need arise.

[jkm2500 0]

How quickly the American public forgets. Wasn't it a few years ago that CONGRESS voted to send in the troops. In a situation like this what should be done? I say pull the recruiters and the funding. Let the parents pick up the bill for the education. But that wouldn't solve the problem. Any ideas?

The primary purpose of the Armed Forces is to prepare for and to prevail in combat should the need arise.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Several recruiters said they had even been threatened with violence.

"I had one father say if he saw me on his doorstep I better have some protection on me," said a recruiter in Ohio. "We see a lot of hostility."

Parents have a right to advise their children on their futures. I see no issue with that at all - regardless of whether they'd encourage or discourage joining a branch of service.

But to physically threaten someone doing their jobs, is completely out of line.

So the issue isn't parents helping their kids make good choices, it's parent going overboard and showing little reason or tact in how they emotionally fail to retain composure in that mission. The level of childishness seems higher in the parents on these issues than the kids themselves.

I think it's more sad that some parents can't teach their kids anything but overreaction and emotional negativism, instead of values and good judgement.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[AndyMan 7]

I think you meant to say:

Quote

Parents have the responsibility to advise their children on their futures.

_Am

__

You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

I think you meant to say:

Quote

Parents have the responsibility to advise their children on their futures.

That really sums it up nicely - and again in about 5% of the words I took to say it. But terseness is not one of my strong points

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[billvon 2,391]

>I say pull the recruiters and the funding. Let the parents pick up the
>bill for the education. But that wouldn't solve the problem. Any ideas?

Keep the system pretty much the way it is. Allow recruiters in school, but do not give them 'exceptional' access to kids. (In other words, do not set aside additional time for them to see the recruiters, just inform them that they are there.) Inform parents what's going on, and then let them make parents and kids make their own decisions.

And if we get to the point where we simply cannot meet the needs for our military via a volunteer army, re-institute the draft. The immediate effect that will have is to reduce the number of wars we get into, which will solve the problem of being over-committed militarily.

[justinb138 0]

Quote

Keep the system pretty much the way it is. Allow recruiters in school, but do not give them 'exceptional' access to kids. (In other words, do not set aside additional time for them to see the recruiters, just inform them that they are there.) Inform parents what's going on, and then let them make parents and kids make their own decisions.

When I was in High School (about 3 years ago) they sometimes had recruiters at the school. They would always have a table set up during lunch time, no time was ever set aside for them. They were pretty much just there to talk to if anyone was interested. It seemed to work pretty well.

Personally, I think this is just a case of bored parents wanting something to bitch about.

[jkm2500 0]

Quote

Keep the system pretty much the way it is. Allow recruiters in school, but do not give them 'exceptional' access to kids. (In other words, do not set aside additional time for them to see the recruiters, just inform them that they are there.) Inform parents what's going on, and then let them make parents and kids make their own decisions.

And if we get to the point where we simply cannot meet the needs for our military via a volunteer army, re-institute the draft. The immediate effect that will have is to reduce the number of wars we get into, which will solve the problem of being over-committed militarily.

Bill, I dont think that the draft is the answer to the question either. There is a problem with instituting the draft. The biggest problem is that moral in the military would be decimated. Right now, and in my opinion even though op-tempo is high, the moral is high. Besides there are a lot of perks to join the Army right now. Perks that won't be taken advantage of if there isnt enough publicity. There are too many kids that get out of High School and go on to do little with thier lives. I am not saying that the answer is allowing the recruiters unfettered access to students, however not letting them talk to kids is just not going to work either.

On another note. This type of posturing by parents only shows kids that Un-Americanism is OK. I think that if this type of attitude continues, this country that was once great fall apart even further.

The primary purpose of the Armed Forces is to prepare for and to prevail in combat should the need arise.

[kallend 1,622]

Quote

Quote

But to physically threaten someone doing their jobs, is completely out of line.

.

The military is ALL ABOUT the threat of violence.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

• Quote

[kallend 1,622]

Unfortunately a lot of military recruiting materials are very misleading. My son was recruited, with clear promises of learning skills useful in civilian life. So far (7 years in) he has yet to learn any such skills, unless assembling and firing mortars, setting up ambushes, and deploying squads of infantry are in demand somewhere other than the military.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[jkm2500 0]

Quote

Unfortunately a lot of military recruiting materials are very misleading. My son was recruited, with clear promises of learning skills useful in civilian life. So far (7 years in) he has yet to learn any such skills, unless assembling and firing mortars, setting up ambushes, and deploying squads of infantry are in demand somewhere other than the military.

True, the combat arms don't supply a lot of technical skills. The police departments, fire departments, and plenty of civilian employers are looking for the other skills that soldiers learn, like leadership, ability to function in high stress enviroments, and on and on. There are plenty of civilian employers who have active recruiting programs for people transitioning out of the Army, merely because they know that the ex soldiers will show up to work on time.

MOS decision in the Army and Air force is up to the Recruit. So if the recruit picks a less desirable civilian equivalent isnt that almost like picking a worthless major in college?

The primary purpose of the Armed Forces is to prepare for and to prevail in combat should the need arise.

[billvon 2,391]

>Bill, I dont think that the draft is the answer to the question either.
>There is a problem with instituting the draft. The biggest problem is that
> moral in the military would be decimated.

I agree. But it is more important to have an adequate military than to have an inadequate military with good morale. The purpose of the US military is to defend the US from its enemies, and it is critical that they remain strong enough to fulfill that mission.

Now, as soon as you institute a draft, a great many people in this country are going to start thinking "wait a minute - you mean I might have to go fight that war?" And that will reduce the number of wars we start, since people will start electing leaders who will not start wars and send them to their deaths. And that in turn will lead to a very low reliance on the draft, since our (reduced) military will be able to fulfill their primary function. It will still be a primarily volunteer military, just one that gets over-committed less.

[jumperboy357 0]

I absolutely agree that in civilian life skills like leadership and discipline are essential skills that are learned in the military. There are many ways to get great skills from the military other than perhaps your military occupation. For example the GI bill paid for my nursing degree. The GI bill is well over $100,000 for college now. This is just one example of a way get real world skills for civilian life. Also, it's been my experience that you get out of the military what you put in. The Army expects that you constantly take classes when not deployed. They want more intelligent and educated people. You can't just be a box of rocks anymore if you want to excel in the Army. SSG James

[AndyMan 7]

Quote

Now, as soon as you institute a draft, a great many people in this country are going to start thinking "wait a minute - you mean I might have to go fight that war?". And that will reduce the number of wars we start, since people will start electing leaders who will not start wars and send them to their deaths.

I see it going the other way. As it is right now, with a very unpopular war having a major effect on recruitment, well - that tells the leaders that sending the military into an unpopular war will have negative impacts on the military. A smart commander in cheif will limit the military's involvement to important wars.

I don't think vietname would have ever happened had the US not had the draft. Vietnam COULD not have happened had the US not had the draft.

By making the military suffer for unpopular wars (as is happening right now), the military will learn to avoid unpopular wars.

Of course this begs the question if there is such a thing as an popular war. If my memory serves correct, Gulf War Episode I was far more popular than the sequel...

_Am

__

You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.

[GQ_jumper 4]

i don't think wars should be engaged based on popularity, correct me if i misinterpretted your comment. but i think wars are about fighting for whats right

History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or the timid.
--Dwight D. Eisenhower

[jkm2500 0]

Quote

I agree. But it is more important to have an adequate military than to have an inadequate military with good morale. The purpose of the US military is to defend the US from its enemies, and it is critical that they remain strong enough to fulfill that mission.

Now, as soon as you institute a draft, a great many people in this country are going to start thinking "wait a minute - you mean I might have to go fight that war?" And that will reduce the number of wars we start, since people will start electing leaders who will not start wars and send them to their deaths. And that in turn will lead to a very low reliance on the draft, since our (reduced) military will be able to fulfill their primary function. It will still be a primarily volunteer military, just one that gets over-committed less.

I disagree with your statement. I think that there are less commited people in the military if you institute the draft. That is bad for everything in the military.

Commitment to the war is just that, we commited to see it through to the end. Now whether you like it or not, or whether these parents like it or not, we have a commitment to that right now.

To tell your kids to be be un-american or unpatriotic is unethical just because we are in an "unpopular" war. I am of the opinion that there are other countries which would love thier citizenship besides this one. We need to become commited to our country in order to make things better. I will not blow smoke and tell you that gov't is justified in the things that it does. I think that maybe we need new blood in some prominent positions in order to fix things. However, war will always be unpopular. It doesn't matter who is in the whitehouse or congress or whatever.

On another note, what do you feel is a justifiable reason to go to war? What would be a popular war? What would be a good reason to watch our sons and daughter go to war, to fight and die for?

The primary purpose of the Armed Forces is to prepare for and to prevail in combat should the need arise.

[GravityGirl 0]

Quote

I say pull the recruiters and the funding. Let the parents pick up the bill for the education.

Sure. Then I'll pull my funding (taxes) and pay for my childs education myself.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Peace and Blue Skies!
Bonnie ==>Gravity Gear!

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Now, as soon as you institute a draft, a great many people in this country are going to start thinking "wait a minute - you mean I might have to go fight that war?" And that will reduce the number of wars we start, since people will start electing leaders who will not start wars and send them to their deaths.

Didn't seen to work that well for Korea and Vietnam. The draft eligible population is outnumbered and outvoted by their elders, and that delta will continue to grow with the boomer population retiring.

[slug 1]

Quote

How quickly the American public forgets. Wasn't it a few years ago that CONGRESS voted to send in the troops. In a situation like this what should be done? I say pull the recruiters and the funding. Let the parents pick up the bill for the education. But that wouldn't solve the problem. Any ideas?

Recruiters.

If they want to visit high schools fine, but they need to stop targeting the schools in the inner city.

Who knows maybe some of the rich kids will put off college for a couple of years for god and country and the G.i. bill once they get the recruiters pep talk.

R.I.P.

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

"...I was in High School (about 3 years ago)...."

Personally, I think this is just a case of bored parents wanting something to bitch about.

You think so, eh? Since you're 3 years out of HS, you're probably around age 21. From your remark, I doubt you have children yet. You certainly don't have any that are close to military age yet.
There's something that happens to you when you become a parent for the first time. It re-hardwires your brain, for a lifetime, to kick-in the parental instinct to do anything, anything at all to protect your child. (Hint: it's what keeps us alive until we can fend for ourselves.)
You never really know what that's like until you become a parent yourself, no matter how old you are when that happens. People who are parents understand this. As parents, we don't just protect our children from physical harm; we also (try to) protect them from being taken advantage of by others (who have their own agendas) while they're still very impressionable and lacking in mature judgment.

If you disagree with those parents' views or their tactics, fine - disagree with them. Call them "wrong" if that's what you believe. But don't demean them by casually dismissing them as "bored".

P.S. - 20 - 25 years from now, when you have your own kids who are military age, the issue may not seem quite so black & white to you any more.

[billvon 2,391]

>I think that there are less commited people in the military if you
>institute the draft. That is bad for everything in the military.

I agree that an adequate all-volunteer military is ideal. However. an adequate volunteer+conscript military is better than an inadequate all-volunteer military. In other words, the draft is there to make up for the people we _can't_ get via volunteers.

>Commitment to the war is just that, we commited to see it through
>to the end. Now whether you like it or not, or whether these parents
>like it or not, we have a commitment to that right now.

That seems to be an argument _for_ a draft.

>On another note, what do you feel is a justifiable reason to go to
> war?

Defense of our country. See World War II or the war in Afghanistan.

>What would be a popular war?

I don't think that has anything to do with it. We should be fighting to defend the US, not to be popular.

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

Unfortunately a lot of military recruiting materials are very misleading. My son was recruited, with clear promises of learning skills useful in civilian life. So far (7 years in) he has yet to learn any such skills, unless assembling and firing mortars, setting up ambushes, and deploying squads of infantry are in demand somewhere other than the military.

There are numerous, well-paying jobs available for someone with that experience and those skills in the civilian world.

Derek

[TomAiello 25]

Quote

By making the military suffer for unpopular wars (as is happening right now), the military will learn to avoid unpopular wars.

I'm pretty sure the military doesn't make the decisions about when and where to go to war. That's congress' job.

Perhaps it would be more appropriate to direct the suffering toward the actual decisionmakers?

-- Tom Aiello

[email protected]
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[AndyMan 7]

Quote

I'm pretty sure the military doesn't make the decisions about when and where to go to war. That's congress' job.

Perhaps it would be more appropriate to direct the suffering toward the actual decisionmakers?

You're suggesting that the Commander in Cheif, the highest ranking officer in the US military didn't sell wars to congress?

Has congress ever pushed the commander in chief into a war he didn't support?

Clearly, the military - through its highest officer, decides where and when it goes. It only then has to make the case to congress for support.

_Am

__

You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.

[TheAnvil 0]

Mr. Cave finds army recruiting taking a slump in a wartime environment in a time period where parents of potential recruits grew up in the Vietnam era newsworthy. To what depths has journalism dropped?

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!