I had a friend who had been in the Army. She really identified with "Be all that you can be", but thought the later "An Army of One" campaign sent the wrong message.
I'm not American and i've always thought it odd how many 'join the army' ads you guys have on your channels, watching cartoons as a kid on the american vs the Canadian channels we got, the american ones always had at least one join the army ad per day, while I think I could count the amount of canadian ones I remember seeing. But i'll agree I remember even then thinking the army of one ones were pretty dumb and made no sense...I also remember the be all you can be ones...that's really how great your guys state propaganda is honestly. I remember these things, still. That says something.
The US has pretty much been at war with someone somewhere since WWII. President Eisenhower's military war complex warnings shows it was already apparent at that time. Stockpiling weapons is only so effective at keeping the complex running. It's much better to constantly be depleting the stockpiles requiring them to constantly being replenished while also needing new toys to be created. I don't know/think/research that the neighbors to the north have been involved in nearly as many conflicts.
Edit: corrected the actual president. thanks ethbro
Doh! Thanks for the correction. I also had it in my mind that Truman did the Highway Act, but that was also Eisenhower. Shows how much I paid attention in history class.
The US army spends about $700 million on recruitment [0]. While that number has been higher recently since becoming an all volunteer army recruitment has been an expensive challenge.
I think the supposition is that Canada also has a volunteer army, but does not spend as much on recruitment. I am not sure if that is true or not, but anecdotally it feels like there is at least 10x the amount of military recruitment ads in the US as there are in Canada.
Bingo. There was a awful lot of screening at MEPS -- where you go to process for the US Military, regardless of Marines/Army/Navy/Airforce -- for medical stuff. Lots of implied "do you secretly have a medical issue?" questions, as the military is responsible for paying for your healthcare.
I served with a dude who entered to be a diesel mechanic (even though he had no background/interest in it) because he got his GF pregnant and didn't have a way to take care of a kid at 19.
These are less of an issue in Canada, the UK, etc. where they have universal healthcare and better safety nets.
> Lots of implied "do you secretly have a medical issue?" questions, as the military is responsible for paying for your healthcare.
Basic training was the hardest exercise that I'd had in my life up until then. They don't want you dying from an asthma attack on the obstacle course or something similar.
Or, if you have a heart condition, they don't want you dying on the operating table from it when they go to remove a piece of shrapnel.
Yup. And if you have a knee problem, back problem, etc. you will get chaptered out for medical reasons, so why waste time and money if that's the eventual outcome? Does the military want to pay for the healthcare of someone who went to basic training with a bad knee and made it worse due to being in the military? No! That isn't their purpose and we should never expect otherwise.
Sometimes I think people are just looking for a boogeyman.
Right, but does Canada have the same global police mission that the United States does? I’m not sure why it would be the default expectation that the U.S. and Canada or other NATO countries would have the same amount of recruitment advertisements.
So I guess I’m unsure about what was being clarified given the OP’s statement and then the following response.
> since becoming an all volunteer army recruitment has been an expensive challenge.
Implying the issue is a volunteer army. If that's the case, Canada would have the same problem as it's also a volunteer army.
If your argument is that it's not about being a volunteer army, it's about the scale of the military, you might be right... we'd have to compare the personnel number to recruitment budget ratio between NATO countries to get a sense of that.
That wouldn't surprise me. As a kid, airshows and movies like Top Gun & Iron Eagle certainly gave me a pro-military view. I did end joining the army after high school. On the first day of basic training, I also have very vivid memories of drill sergeants mocking us recruits for having bought into the "be all you can be" propaganda :)
My favorite memory of an airshow was seeing the SR-71 fly. Oh my gosh that thing was cool. It was so loud that its vibrations set off what seemed to be every car alarm in the parking lot. At the end of its performance, the pilot just pulled back on the stick and just flew straight up into the clouds. I don't know if this video is the airshow I went to, but imagine a kid with a love of military aircraft seeing this thing up close --https://youtu.be/aV82gbriMc8.
I also have fond memories of seeing an A/V-8B Harrier do a vertical take off and landing. The funniest memory I have was seeing the label on an Apache helicopter's 30mm cannon that said "do not aim at personnel on base".
My favorite first hand experience was getting to fly in a vintage WW2 B-25 Mitchell. I sat in the glass bubble where a gunner would sit at the front of the aircraft. This was in 2012. The owner said that all of the parts he ordered to keep the plane flying came in the original WW2 packaging. As of 8 years ago, somewhere out there was a warehouse full of WW2 era spare parts for 70 year old bombers!
On another tangent: there are also collectors of WW2 (and older) combat rations, and some people open their contents for review and sometimes consumption today: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JA6u-sYhFi0
If you really wanted to try and take a flight on this plane, or a similar one, I could try to get you in touch with the guy. It's a friend of my Dad's friend.
Here's a video from 1992, which will give you a sense of what is event is/was like, too:
> On the first day of basic training, I also have very vivid memories of drill sergeants mocking us recruits for having bought into the "be all you can be" propaganda :)
The war business needs lots of dedicated people, therefore fueling nationalism and military pride becomes necessary to have a constant influx of applicants. This happens pretty much everywhere, although to different degrees.
In fairness the Canadian army doesn't really need you and to get combat you really need to put in your time and volunteer for the post. In the US army depending on the timeframe you could be through basic training and in a combat zone in less than a year.
I'm not certain how easy it is in the forces to get cushy stay at home jobs, but Canada actually contributes disproportionately highly to armed conflict when compared to the US, it has participated heavily in quite a few recent actions[1]. Both armed forces have logistical and bureaucratic arms along but only the US (AFAICT) has a dedicated stay-at-home path via the National Guard.
Indeed -- many National Guard units have done 4+ deployments to Afghanistan or Iraq.
There was an article a while back about how the Guard used to be fat-ass weekend warriors with gear that was EOL or falling apart. After damn near 20 years of Afghanistan and Iraq most of those Guard units have been multiple times and are equipped and trained to something that resembles actually full-time line units. The Active Duty troopers still get better gear and training, but the Reserves & Guard are a completely different creature than a few decades ago.
Canada spends disproportionately low compared to the US. It's been a source of major compliants in NATO.
1.2526% vs 3+%
Canada does join many more conflicts than it should. But sometimes doesn't have the equipment to get there/back to survive (wearing green camo instead of brown in the desert is a major disadvantage).
Funny, because Canada (and other countries) likely wouldn’t be able to get away with having such a small army if it were not for the protection afforded by US power projection. It’s easy to look at the large military in the US and feel morally superior living in a country with a small military. But most likely that country benefits from an alliance with the US. The fact that the US has such a large military is a major reason why many other countries do not need one.
I don’t think that is true, especially when you consider that if the USA didn’t project power, Russia might not either, and then the Canadian military is just exchanging bottles of liquor with the Danes.
The fact that the world is polarized around two or three superpowers creates its own problems for the other counties. The USA not projecting any power wouldn’t necessarily require its former allies to acquire bigger militaries. The size of the EU’s combined military is already comparable to Russia’s for example. Japan and South Korea would be in much harder spots, comparatively.
Well, yes, if no country had a military then no country would need a military. But that’s a rather moot point isn’t it? World peace would be nice but it doesn’t look to be achievable in our lifetimes, and arguably goes against human nature.
It’s also worth noting that the military does a lot more than perpetuate violence. It’s really a jobs program more than anything. And soldiers are often on the front lines of humanitarian disasters, as well. Just look at the hospital they built in New York for one recent example.
> Well, yes, if no country had a military then no country would need a military.
It's always seemed that way to me. Indeed, you could pretty much replace "military" with "national government" in that sentence.
But anyway, it'll likely never happen. Unless we get into a war with aliens, I guess.
I did love Vinge's "bobble" concept. Wherein individuals became as powerful as governments. Or at least, could escape from them across time. And send them across time, as well.
> The size of the EU’s combined military is already comparable to Russia’s for example
As an American, I’d bet on the Russians winning that fight every time. Size of force means nothing here. Likewise with the Israelis - they punch above their weight.
Not trying to put words in your mouth, as I don’t think you meant that at all, but I wanted to show that projection of power doesn’t necessarily equal headcount.
The French for instance, have nuclear weapons. If they were really about to lose their country, they could unleash some serious devastation.
> Funny, because Canada (and other countries) likely wouldn’t be able to get away with having such a small army if it were not for the protection afforded by US power projection.
Not true in the Canadian case. Over 90% of the Canadian population is within 100 miles of the US border and they'd have no chance in a conflict with the US. They could just straight up abolish their military like Costa Rica and it would have almost no effect on their security situation. Having an ocean between you and any potential enemies that you can actually defend against is different from genuine free riders like Germany.
I think this is far less about violence vs non-violent nations etc. It is more a political and economical decision. The US spends huge amounts on military equipments that's made by their own national manufacturers, so all that money also creates jobs in the US and pays taxes. Others spend way less, because they're not getting jobs or taxes back for it, so they only consider the needs in terms of defending their country. With virtually no conflicts around most countries that amount just isn't very high.
Trump spouts a lot of hot air about Europe not doing their part, but that's more for internal politics to make him look tough and "America first" to the average American. On the European side of the water he is more and more just ignored, doesn't even make the media most of the time. Considering Trump is 73 years old, I'm sure he will be dead long before anything really changes in military spending by others. And deep down he also knows that, it's all political theater.
The 'Army of One' ads also had people with helmets with visors wherein you couldn't see they eyes of the person, they looked like storm troopers - it's the only military ad I've really taken umbrage with.
There were 'pre-movie' recruiting ads in Texas movie theatres with knights fighting dragons that turned into Marines that I though was really hilarious and pathetic, but it wasn't 'bad' just tacky.
There were some other ads something along the lines of 'They called me a loser High School, but now I'm doing this and this' or whatever - which is in some way ok (most people feel like 'outsiders' in HS and teens yearn for self improvement), but maybe a little sketchy.
The Army is really serious stuff, it's ok to hint at adventure, self-improvement, fraternity but at the core it must appeal to 'duty' and or kind of communitarian obligation/commitment or it's the wrong message.
The individual tactics used by some recruiters are kind of deplorable, I do think however recruiters should be allowed in schools legally, just like any other employer.
>The Army is really serious stuff, it's ok to hint at adventure, self-improvement, fraternity but at the core it must appeal to 'duty' and or kind of communitarian obligation/commitment or it's the wrong message.
I also think more mundane army portrayals like this helps to defuse US separatist extremist groups while visor down or active combat portrayals fuel that fire.
Why exactly would 'US separatist extremist groups' ( how many of these can you name? ) and secessionist groups be interested in joining the federally run US army? Wouldn't mundane army portrayals just appeal to their sense of dissatisfaction with a society that many already see as far too passive? Or, as you so smugly put it, 'fuel that fire'.
You forgot to mention Cheeto Hitler in your post. There's still time to edit though, so it's okay.
Many separatists groups believe the federal government is too powerful and is aggressively conspiring to oppress them. A vicious looking well equipped military just feeds into these notions.
On the other hand, portrayals of the army as merely builders and farmers in uniform would defuse their fears.
I sure hope that on the day China puts boots on US soil, there are enough people left who aren't as much of an intellectual titan as whoever made this picture.
More recent versions have kids in high school being highlighted as leaders in their school going on to being leaders in which ever military branch it is running this campaign. Or the version of the kids having the conversation with their parent trying to convince them of their decision to join the military in the juxtaposed positions. Essentially, they've gone from being a broad "look how cool we are" to a much more personally identifying position of the younger recruits. I think they learned a lot from the "Army of One" fiasco and took marketing/PR seriously.
As I recall, the Army of One was sort of part of the zeitgeist of the moment and, yeah, it fell pretty flat in the context of suggesting military loners rather than teams.
I recall my friends in college praising it at the time. To them, the biggest downside of joining the military (besides, obviously, getting killed) was that your individuality would be beaten out of you. This marketing campaign tried to show that wasn’t necessarily the case.
I have no experience with the Army and even I knew that "Army of One" is a dumb as shit slogan. The entire military functions only because of chain of command and submitting to the organization rather than the individual. Otherwise how else would you get someone to risk their life for something as nebulous as a "mission"?
(Looks like it was short-lived [1])
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slogans_of_the_United_States_A...