Then and Now, What Factors Influence a Soldier to Enlist?
Then and Now, What Factors Influence a Soldier to Enlist?
Information is at their fingertips, however, Prospective soldiers in the information age enlist for the same reasons they did during past war eras when less information was available to them. Propaganda and Anti-war sentiment are all over the internet, but while the information is more readily available, its delivery method is no more powerful than its message, which has been delivered through one channel or another throughout the ages. So how did these messages get to these prospective heroes? How did it effect their decisions to enlist? As a nation, can we still count on brave men and women to put their lives on the line for us in future conflicts? If history tells us anything, the answer would be a resounding "yes". No matter what the popular opinion is about any war, it seems that there are always reasons to become a soldier. Four answers in particular that you are likely to get regardless of which generation of soldiers you ask are; patriotism, the draft, atrocities committed by the enemy and finally, the economy.
When Warren Eyer, a veteran of World War Two, was asked during an interview much later in life, why he became a pilot in the Air Force, the answer was typical "Primarily to protect our country." (Everybody) This is probably the most common reason that can be found given by veterans and current soldiers alike. Many felt as though joining the military wasn't even a question as their fathers and grandfathers served and this is the way they knew to honor their families and their country. It is a very common sentiment among this population. . In a report regarding the propensity to enlist, Lawrence and Legree, list these reasons in one category called "Historical Interest" (Lawrence, 1) There are even those who did not join it voluntarily who leave the military with a sense of pride for having served. While there are exceptions to every rule, Patriotism is still the most common reason for enlisting.
The draft played a crucial role in military participation. While there was a draft in both World War Two and the Vietnam War, the draft in Vietnam caused an enlistment spike for reasons that may not have started off as a fervent desire to serve. Many Vietnam soldiers enlisted to get better posts than they would if they became drafted. The draft meant a one-way ticket to fight on the front lines in Vietnam. Many of these enlistees did so because there was a small chance they may actually avoid the draft. For so many unfortunate souls however, the draft was the reason they served, whether they wanted to or not.
Pearl Harbor and the attack on the World Trade Center were reasons many unlikely soldiers became new recruits. Kevin Mencio, for example, was comfortable in his executive position at Goldman=Sachs before the attacks on September 11th. Afterward however he went out and enlisted in the infantry. He read this to his platoon trying to explain to them why they were in an Army base in Afghanistan.
'Three years ago, I stood in disbelief on the corner of Liberty and Church streets and watched as just a half a block away, a Boeing 767 flew into the south tower of the World Trade Center." (USA Today)
Defending their country was very patriotic; however, it was these events, not a prior interest that caused many with no military plans whatsoever to enlist.
Those who are either extremely honest or very modest will say that it was a job, and they needed one. Historically, it is thought that World War Two ended the depression because it created so many military jobs. It is interesting however, that one reason, not often thought of when we imagine brave soldiers' fighting for our freedom is employment "Even in the beginning of the recession in 2008, army recruitment was up. 2007 was the deadliest year in Iraq with 961 casualties yet the Army beat all of its goals in 2008... No matter which way you slice it and dice it, every branch of the military & their reserves met or beat their goals for fiscal year 2009." (Galt). A job is vital to existence anytime and the military is a solid choice for those who want job training and travel. Yet economic downturn seems to be a factor that bolsters military recruitment even in times of conflict.
The source of available information during each of these war periods was different and affected each group's reasons for joining. In most cases the outcome was a rise in enlistment. Much of this information was meant to bolster enlistment and we now know this to be propaganda. Some of the information caused people to enlist, out of fear. Each of the war eras being discussed were a little more advanced than the last.
The channels from which the veterans of World War Two received their information were limited yet effective. The attack on Pearl Harbor was conveyed from coast to coast within hours thanks to radio, nightly radio shows also kept people informed. Newspapers reported both fronts of the war with interviews, photos, and advertisements about the war efforts, "there were more than 11,000 in the country then." (Ward, 72) Movie theatres were a gathering place where the public watched news reels about the war, and advertisements about war bonds or other war effort related ads, but the movies themselves delivered the real intended messages.
"During World War II, reporters and soldiers filmed parts of the war for American citizens to watch back home. Reporters and soldiers filmed with the purpose of building up support for the war and negative feelings towards the Nazis and Adolf Hitler. The angle and filming tactics of the directors purposely attempt to spirit those watching into helping in the fight against the Germans to the best of their ability. Young boys and men would watch these films in the theaters and become excited about killing Nazis, stimulating them to join the war against them." (Salkeld)
The movies were a powerful asset by themselves, and information was everywhere. If prospective recruits were too young to read a newspaper or listen to a radio broadcast, there were Captain America and other superhero comics, teaching the youth that soldiers were heroes. Even the war posters from that era are now iconic, due to the powerful messages conveyed in their illustrations. Again showing how the technology might have been different but the information was still boundless.
The youth that became the soldiers in Vietnam grew up on the heels of the World War Two veterans. They played "soldier" and expected that if the time ever came, they would fight like their fathers. Yet the 1960's were different, and the more rebellious and outspoken critics of the war changed the way young Americans felt about becoming involved in it. Protesting the war became extremely newsworthy. Between men setting themselves on fire and "sit-ins", the news about the war was no longer a fond look at becoming a soldier. The culture and subculture was more vocal about expressing disapproval of the war. Many soldiers of the war were greeted by protesters who spat on them upon returning home. "...Guys were already burning their draft cards" (O'Brian) Newspapers and radio played their obvious role in reporting the largely unpopular opinion about the war, but television was a very big factor in enlistment. Rather than watching newsreels made specifically for the purpose of dehumanizing the enemy like their fathers did, this generation was exposure was more sobering. "It was terrifying. Even though our fathers were Vets of WWII and we expected to fight, we were scared. They (fathers) thought they were going to be like Captain America and fight the evil Germans, with only the stories their fathers had told them to know what it was like in war. We saw it. We were glued to it. Then you waited for your number." Remembers Paul Schmitz when asked about what it was like to view footage of the war and casualties through live television on the nightly news.
Soldiers and veterans of the current military generation, found themselves in the information age. Cable television gave way to around the clock news channels such as CNN and CSpan which provided constant coverage and public opinion about the crisis in the Middle East. These resources were vastly different than the nightly news the previous generation once depended on. Then the internet emerged providing information to anyone, anytime, anyplace. The internet is a powerful communications tool and is a constant source of information for everything, including both accurate and inaccurate and positive and negative information. Following the attack on September 11th, for instance, there was a surge of support for the war, and within week's anti-war sentiment and conspiracy theories. "After the attacks several conspiracy theories started to appear on the internet, spurring the notion that the attack was planned to start the war" writes Gloria Borger in an article about how the internet affected the public opinion about the war. Unlike information provided by journalists, or reporters who had a set of ethics and rules of journalism (for the most part), the internet has no rules. Any group can have an internet site and use that site for whichever agenda they please. The military uses several different sites for recruiting and advertising about the wonderful life a person can achieve if they join a particular branch. In contrast, there are several sites owned by political groups who may fill that site with anti-war sentiment. Either position can influence a decision about whether or not to join the military. This generation also has its newspapers, magazines and while not as popular, its news radio, which deliver information to them, however not with the impact that they once had.
How did the information available to them during each of these time periods influence their decisions, and does the availability of more information change those reasons? With the veterans of World War Two, it is hard to tell. Given there are very few veterans of that war still alive, the conclusions being drawn are strictly based on interviews and research. In the interviews and accounts of that time, it seems, many joined for the honor or to live up to the standard set by either their fathers or Hollywood. Just as many joined because of what was happening in Germany or after Pearl Harbor. Lastly, several men joined because the country was just getting over a depression and the military was a steady source of income. So it does not seem likely that the invention of the internet would have changed these sentiments. There was not a lack of information, only a different delivery method. There may have been a more honorable view of becoming a soldier and fighting for your country. It is still not clear whether this was a product of propaganda or naturally occurring sense of duty.
Vietnam Veterans were confused by the contradicting information that they were getting about the war vs. the message that they had heard all their lives that told them becoming a soldier was the honorable thing to do. Many of the Veterans interviewed said that they enlisted quickly so that they would not be drafted and sent to Vietnam. Enlisting meant that they would possibly avoid Vietnam and go to Cuba instead, or maybe serve in a branch less likely to see conflict. "When we realized that things were so bad in 'Nam, We enlisted so we could go to Cuba. We would have rather been there than Vietnam, which is where we certainly would've ended up if we'd been drafted. So it was that or Canada, and NO ONE wanted Canada. That was exile and shame to your family. We wanted to fight in a war that we believed in, but no matter what your beliefs were, it was really difficult to feel proud of fighting in a war that people hated and hated you for being in. The really sad part is that so many people died for it and these guys didn't feel proud of themselves" David Maxfield an Army veteran of Vietnam tearfully explained as he talks near the Traveling Vietnam Memorial. The information they were receiving not only causes them to enlist to avoid the draft, but to also run from it. Even considering that many ended up drafted no matter what decisions they made, the information channels during this era certainly impacted the decisions made by those veterans.
The attacks on the World Trade Center and events that occurred on September 11th are often reasons given by men and women who enlisted to fight in Iraq and Afghanistan. Most often citing patriotism and the heroism of the New York City Police and Fireman as reasons they were compelled. Many have joined due to the recession and the commercials from different military branches telling them, that they can earn a living, train for a job, and pay for their education. The common denominator among all of these reasons being information they received either from news through cable television or the internet. The images of planes crashing into the towers were burned into their heads either from a constant stream of coverage of the event provided by CNN and CSpan among other news channels. The internet is also doing its part in recruitment by serving up several recruiting ads to anyone trying to search anything military related. The constant coverage of the recession has also caused a surge in enlistment "Every Branch of the military has exceeded their enlistment goals." PPA A recent finding pointed out that military enlistment has never been so high even in an era of "stop-loss", a tactic used by the military to keep solders past their enlistment obligation. There seems to be no shortage of soldiers willing to fight even when information about making decisions seems to be more readily available than ever.
The answers vary a little depending on which war era's soldiers you talk with or study. For the most part, however, more information means only that, more information. The internet is a wealth of information about wars both past and present. If they searched hard enough a person could find enough information to make informed decisions about becoming a soldier, yet propaganda is still alive and well. So it would seem that it does not matter how they get the information, or even the content, there is always a reason to become a soldier. The technology has changed, but the sentiment hasn't. Patriotism is still alive and well. This nation can feel safe that no matter what the conflict, there will always be men and women who will knowingly sign up and risk their safety to protect what we hold dear. It is this common denominator, Bravery and the willingness to sacrifice their personal beliefs and possibly their lives, which makes them heroes no matter what information caused them to become our soldiers.
Answers
1. What does the writer do well in this essay?
He clearly explains the dangers of genetically engineered crops, using strong evidence to support his ideas. He also integrates his source materials nicely.
2. What does the writer need to work on in this essay?
3. State the main point of this essay.
4. Does the introduction grab your attention? Does it lead smoothly to a thesis? If not, what could the writer do to improve it?
5. What is the thesis statement? Does it contain a strong opinion and specific focus? Explain.
6. Does each paragraph develop one main idea? Describe the main idea of each paragraph (five words or less for each). Does each topic sentence tie back to the thesis?
7. Does the writer offer evidence for the points he or she makes in each paragraph? If so, is the evidence convincing?
8. Does the writer use transitions between paragraphs and ideas?
9. Does the conclusion briefly summarize in a fresh way the writer's main argument and then end on a memorable note (such as a quotation, thought, image, or call to action)? What is that memorable impression that the conclusion leaves?
10. Are quotations integrated smoothly? Do they flow with the grammar of the sentence? Are all quotations cited correctly?
11. Is there a Works Cited page reflecting each author quoted in the body of the essay? Are the entries of the Works Cited page in correct MLA format? Are they alphabetized? Does each entry have all the necessary citation information? Does the Works Cited section appear on its own page?
12. Is the essay formatted correctly (margins, font, spacing, etc.)? If not, what needs to be corrected?
13. Does the essay have a creative title that describes the purpose/point of the paper in a catchy, clear way?
The title is boring. Perhaps something like "Regulations: The Only Safeguard Against Genetically Engineered Crops."
14. Are there grammar and spelling errors in the essay?
15. If you were writing this essay, what would you do differently? Why?
