October 6, 1999
The Pentagon is complaining that it's now in a near-crisis because
recruitment numbers have taken a nose dive. The Army and Air Force are
falling far short of their targeted goals, while the Navy is squeaking
by only by lowering its standards and recruiting quotas.
The Army is trying to entice young men to enlist by offering
"signing bonuses." Recruits can get an extra $6,000 for signing up
this week on top of other bonuses including as much as $50,000 for
The Pentagon is blaming our affluent society, low unemployment,
civilian career opportunities, the fact that the pool of young men age
18 to 22 has declined, and particularly the drop in the number who have
high school diplomas. The Army is starting a program to pay thousands
in this latter group to study for G.E.D.s so they can qualify to
enlist, which of course means that the taxpayers will pay a second time
to teach recruits what they weren't taught in public schools.
The Army has ordered hundreds of new enlistees to go back to their
home town to persuade some of their old neighbors to sign up. When a
New York Times reporter asked one of these new privates what his sales
pitch is, he said he tells his old buddies that "it ain't so bad."
Under the advice of consultants hired to refocus its $300 million
recruitment advertising, the Army is abandoning one of the most
successful and memorable of all 20th century advertising slogans: "Be
All That You Can Be." Maybe the Army will now be erecting billboards
that read "Join the Army -- It Ain't So Bad."
The Pentagon's new PR consultants are supposed to research "the
attitudes and habits of the young" in order to design new advertising.
But the consultants are wasting their time if they start from the
mindset that our goal must be a gender-neutral military and that
recruitment strategy must appeal equally to men and women.
Everybody with ordinary common sense knows that, under the Clinton
Administration's social engineering designed to produce a gender-neutral military, there is no way a serviceman can "be all that he can
be." Coed basic training and the Pentagon's refusal to allow women to
fail in tests for officer assignments mean that standards have been
redefined and lowered to female achievement levels.
Funny thing, the Marine Corps (which a Clintonista Pentagon
feminist labeled "extremist") doesn't seem to suffer these problems.
It hasn't succumbed to mixed-gender basic training, and recruits can
realistically aspire to be all that they can be.
Another principal reason for the dramatic decline in recruitment
is Clinton's attempt to transform the military he loathes into global
cops and social workers. And, contrary to Administration propaganda,
his "peacekeeping" expeditions weren't nation-building in Haiti,
Somalia or Bosnia, and they weren't humanitarian in Yugoslavia.
House Military Personnel Subcommittee chairman Steve Buyer (R-IN)
said it best: "We're fooling ourselves if we believe we can solve the
problem with more G.E.D. programs or more money for ads. What we need
is a change in foreign policy."
Secretary General Kofi Annan, in his speech this fall to the
United Nations General Assembly, called for "a new commitment to
intervention." His call to violate national sovereignty for
"humanitarian" purposes flouts the UN and NATO Charters, just as
Clinton's war in Yugoslavia flouted the U.S. Constitution about which
branch of government has the warmaking power.
We don't need high-priced consultants and surveys to tell us why
young Americans are not signing up. They don't want to serve in a
foreign legion under foreign commanders for undefined and
We don't need high-priced consultants to tell us why the retention
rate has plummeted along with the recruitment rate. We already have an
official tax-funded survey that tells us that 76% of male trainers and
74% of female trainers say that discipline has been hurt by gender-
Since the duty to provide for the common defense is the most
important duty of the Federal Government, there is no more important
issue to place on the table during the presidential debates than how
our armed services will be used (or misused). Most of the current
problems have been caused by executive or administrative orders, and
they can be reversed the same way.
Will the next President put a stop to social engineering in the
military, mixed-gender basic training, dumbed-down standards and
gender-norming to accommodate the physical capabilities of women,
redefining "combat" to accommodate the feminist policy of assigning
women to combat duty, lying about "equality" in the armed services,
destroying the careers of male officers who dare to tell the truth, and
putting women in places where they don't belong such as on submarines?