Prompted to explain their reasons for joining the military, frequent ComingAnarchy.com commenters Eddie and Lirelou gave their reasons here that are too good to languish in the comments section. The question: does poverty make people join the military? Both answered in the negative, citing specific alternatives (in bold).
“I joined the Navy because I was a failure. I’d dropped out of college, lost my girlfriend and decided it was time for a positive change in my life that could help me “grow up”Â? while helping my country. My parents are steady middle class and prior military veterans themselves with 20+ years in the Army each. They joined for a meaningful career and the chance to defend their country, then stayed because Ronald Reagan gave the military a worthy purpose and helped it heal the wounds of Vietnam.”
Lirelou:
“As an old retired SF type who is still in daily contact with today’s soldiers, the poverty=military service paradigm is flawed. I joined the Army for adventure. On the day that World War III started, I wanted to be hanging out the side of an aircraft with a hundred and sixty pounds of parachute, weapon, ammunition, and equipment strapped to various parts of my body, give a steely-eyed glare at the onion domed Kremlin rolling by below, nod back to my 11 team-mates hanging on to their static lines, and leap into the darkness thinking: “Repent you Scumbag Commie Bastards, your hour has come!”Â?
Thankfully, the reality of over twenty-seven years of military life proved a bit less eventful. Todays soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines join for a variety of reasons. Greater economic opportunity does attract its share, but so does educational opportunity, adventure (see above), boredom (with life, current home situation, Mom, girlfriend, boyfriend, whatever), tradition (my Pappy was a paratrooper, Marine, pilot, etc), civic pride (every citizen should serve), ambition (I want to run for Congress, and being a veteran will give me greater authority in defence affairs), patriotism (I hate the goddam military, but I want to serve my country in war), and what I call the “I’ll show them”Â? factor (I’m an Arab-American Muslim Marine, asshole, you gotta problem with that?).
The poverty quotient is lower today than it was when I entered (1962), and we had a draft then. We are (and were) not the dispossessed of the earth, foot soldiers in the capitalist war on the weak, fighters in every cause save our own.”
There you have it, first hand. Also, Eddie preceded his comments with this little gem:
“Of course I joined the military because of poverty. Hitler Bush laid off my parents to help Ken Lay, starved us because we wouldn’t eat his genetically altered poision food, killed all of my homosexual friends and then orchestrated the 9/11 attacks in order to justify all of the increased military-industrial complex spending he needed to conquer the world.
And the JEWS at AIPAC told him to do all this.”
Don’t forget Halliburton!
Great now the whole world knows I was a failure…. (j/k)
Halliburton must be responsible for the atrocious food in the galley, even the Navy shouldn’t be able to make food that inedible.
Also, I neglected the election-fixers at Diebold, who are currently weighing bids from 2008 prez contenders to determine who they will rig the election for.
The initial question shouldn’t be “Does poverty lead to military service?”Â?, but rather “Do more poor join the military than better-off people?”Â? or something like. I don’t know the answer – the above two accounts certainly raise valid reasons to join the military, but are beside the point of what you intend to show. They’re offering alternative reasons to join the military, but you want to write about whether poverty leads people to be more inclined to join the troops rather than pursuit other options. They’re also not at all representative of the majority of the US troops – but looking for a research about the social structure didn’t turn up anything useful so far. If there are more people in the military who’re coming from poorer families than middle or upper class, that’s certainly an indication that it indeed is true, despite of Eddie’s and Lirelou’s personal impressions. The latter mentioned greater economic opportunity, now what would be interesting to know in how far this aspect is dominating or not.
Point #6 on “this page”:http://www.afsc.org/youthmil/Military-Recruitment/poverty-draft.htm could be helpful in pointing out why poverty – or unemployment – is an important factor, but since this is about Puerto Rico only, it’s importance is limited on the region itself.
p.s.: “recruiting methods and tactics”:http://www.objector.org/before-you-enlist/recruiter-letter.html are another source of information, answering a potential recruit’s question “why should I join?”
p.p.s.: what’s up with the gravatars, they’re all black, but the gravatar site is online…?
What’s the problem if poor people join the military? If the salary is decent and it offers certain advantages, such as educational opportunities, what’s wrong with that (as a middle-classer, I considered joining, but decided not to cause there were other things I wanted to do at the time)? I think soldiers should definitely be better paid, but isn’t it always the left that wants less military spending?
With a volunteer army, what’s the problem if alot of poor people join up? People do join of their own free will, and anyway, how would one go about restricting service? Sign a declaration stating that your family wasn’t poor, quotas restricting poor people from joining, lowering the pay so not even poor people will join, raising the pay so richer people will join, or conscription so that there will be equal representation of all classes?
I don’t think this is a left-right issue, but is rather on the poor-rich axis. Historically, people from lower classes have been used as cannonfodder in wars, today there might be a residue of such experiences leading to this debate. The question is, too, whether the (U.S.) military is really a better financial opportunity that is claimed by its recruiters or whether the reality is different. About the free will issue, if you have the choice, you’ve got enough money to say no and plenty of other opportunities to make ends meet. Try to choose when there’s unemployment of 40% as menioned in the above posted link.
I think you’re on the right track with your last question, it is about fairness as well – who’s defending society and who doesn’t, who’s going to sign over his life and who’s not, in this respect conscription with all its downsides is probably the fairest option. The German Bundeswehr always claimed to be a “mirror of society” and garanteed equal distribution of encumbrances (correct expression?), but since only a part of each year is being drafted, this system is starting to falter.
I was in the middle of posting a comment and pressed the wrong button so there may be two comments the first one incomplete.
Let’s cut straight to the bone: this issue of whether the poor are more likely to serve in the military is driven by a political agenda that is trying to portray the US as unjust and the people in the military as victims. But the question we need to ask is whether the people who have volunteered to serve in the military see themselves in this way and based on my experience the answer is no. I was an Army infantryman from 92-95. I grew up middle class. I didn’t HAVE to join the Army. I wanted to join the Army. Adventure, patriotism, duty, a young man seeking to test himself, desire for travel, a lifelong desire to serve in the military, a desire to follow in the footsteps of my grandfather who served in WW2, and yes a paycheck and the college fund were all a part of my decision. And this kind of thing was true for most of the guys I served with.
Of course there are people who will try to portray those of us who have served in military in a way that we would not portray ourselves. They will also dismiss our views and opinions and experiences in favor of their pet theory.
Kaplan’s Imperial Grunts reveals a military that wants to be where it is. There are people who like the military regardless of background who are attracted by the experiences military service offers. Even if they don’t always agree with specific policy decisions.
We should ask the people who have served/are serving in the military why they have done so and then actually listen to them instead of imposing some theory. Our conclusion should be based on what these people say.
Maybe we should ask why people don’t join the military. For example why do liberals prefer not to join the military? Why more people from the South and fewer from New England? Are people whose parents and grandparents have served more likely to volunteer?
The site referenced is run by the American Friends Committee, or Quakers. Very fine people, and true pacificsts who are opposed to all war service. Thus their information is collated to support an ideological position that cannot, for reasons of conscience, be abandoned. Lirelou is a product of the Puerto Rican higher educational system (both Inter-American University and the Univ. of Puerto Rico), and spent a few years in the “Puerto Rican Military Forces” (See article of same title, published in a 1977 issue of “An Cosantoir: The Irish Defence Journal”). Lirelou even had a few of these quakers as professors in college. Yes, Puerto Rico has 40% unemployment. It also has 60% of the entire island on some form of welfare. It receives roughly $22 billion a year in welfare and federal matching funds (all paid for by the U.S. taxpayer, as Puerto Rico pays no U.S. taxes). All this despite the fact that some 50% of the island is unsure as to whether they are Americans or Puertorricans first. (6% have absolutely no doubt as to their “puertorriquenismo”) It also has a culture which, except in extremist independence circles, views military service favorably. Thus while military recruiters in Puerto Rico see far more “walk-ins” inquiring about military service than their counterparts on much of the mainland, they have to work much harder to narrow down the candidates to those who understand enough English to get through basic training. For many Puertorricans, this “learn English” factor also serves as a draw for entering the military, as those who have a greater command of English tend to get the better jobs on the island, and have greater access to the U.S. job market, where the pay is higher. Statistics are like sound-bites. They’re great for making a point, but they need to be placed in context.
As a postnote, Lirelou never said he wasn’t poor. He merely pointed out that poverty was not the reason he enlisted. As for the poorer classes being “cannon fodder”, it only makes sense that the less educated, or those scoring lower on service tests, will initially fill positions down in the ranks. Since most human beings, to include the poor and uneducated, are works in progress, those that survive wartime and opt for military careers do not necessarily remain at the bottom. In this regard, they are no different than those who happily receive their discharges, and step out into civilian life with an enriched vision of the world. Two of Lirelou’s Vietnam era enlisted medics went on to become medical doctors, and another low ranking enlilsted man now edits a small city daily newspaper.
Pingback: Simon World
Well Grendel, I think conscription is pretty near an impossibility in the US, despite all the ranting over how it was all in the works by Bush and buddies. Wouldn’t it basically be political suicide to bring it back? I just can’t see conscription being a credible option anyway, since Americans are used to having plenty of freedom and don’t like government telling them what they have to do. Why can’t it just be left as an open option for anyone (even non-Americans) to join IF THEY WANT TO? Please don’t turn this into an equality issue, as this then invites the government to step in and make everything ‘equal’, at the expense of freedom.
As for the suggestion that the recruiters are misrepresenting the benefits or that recruits are being mislead, the fact is, anyone and everyone who joins the military is under no illusions as to what it entails. Absolutely no one is stupid enough to not realize that by signing on the dotted line, you are signing up to the possibility of dying. Every recruit surely understands this, no matter what rewards they believe they will recieve by joining up.
I think the ‘solutions’ to the possible inequality of representation in the military would be certainly worse than what is in place now and some would be unpalatable. How many liberals would be willing to be conscripted just to redress some supposed lack of balance of poor people? The left loves to talk about how the poor are abused, but few would actually step in and make any kind of a serious sacrifice for those poor ‘brethren’.
I think this is one of those iffy iffy relationships. Poverty doesn’t neccessarily lead to joining the military, but I bet if you checked the backgrounds of enlisted men, you would find a far fewer number of middle class families than in the private sector. Theres no cutting around this fact despite the testimonials here.
If the phrasing of the statement is offensive, then I suppose the statement that those with more financial means are less likely to enlist for military service is a PC enough alternative.
“Don’t forget Halliburton!”
… Don’t forget Poland either. You know they were part of this conspiracy.
P.S. Thanks for the link – it’s spelled with an “S” though ;)
Jing, I think the enormous size of the American middle class guarantees that the majority of current young service members will fall within that definition. If we limit that to “upper middle class”, i.e. parents limited to certain professions earning $90,000 a year of more (per working parent), then I agree that the majority of enlisted personnel will fall below that mark, but again, regional and ethnic factors also play an important role. My experience is that the offspring of the upper middle class who do join the military, tend to do so as officers. Interestingly enough, you will find more (but again not a majority) of upper middle class offspring in the ranks of the elite units (Marines, Rangers, Special Forces). And as for regionalism, I am always surprised by the number of Massachusetts residents I find in the Marine Corps. As recruiting falls below target, you can expect to see larger numbers of non-high school graduates, many of whom are from below the “middle class” bar to be allowed to enlist. I believe your final statement is accurate enough, but as a corollary is fails to take into account the myriad other factors involved in the decision to enlist.
Lirelou, all very interesting information, I’ll check out the journal you mentioned. Using the info from the American Friends Committee certainly isn’t a neutral source, but I don’t expect the White House or Halliburton to provide any information about the poverty draft at all. Actually, having Google providing several thousands of pages about the keywords poverty draft gives me the idea that there’s really something behind it, even more, when I take a closer look to some of those links (one’s below)
If I made the impression that I thought the two initially mentioned experiences were from military personell coming from poor conditions, that wasn’t my intent. Curzon just tried to use your accounts to prove a point but failed to show why and how they stand against the initial question.
I’ve been in Ireland very recently and had the chance to introduce myself to several periods of Irish history that weren’t that clear before – like the potato famine which lead to millions of people emigrate, lots of them to the US and being used as “cannonfodder” (that’s where I got the expression from) in the civil war a few years later. I guess you’re right with the observation that uneducated (and thus probably poor, since there’s a connection between education and poverty) people are more prone to fill lower ranks. What irks me is the increased use of “mercenaries”:http://www.iroke.de/wp/2005/07/01/afghanistan-isaf/ , since there’re market powers colliding with moral questions, and the US military complete blends out the latter. In this context, from “new poverty draft”:http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04/12/23/1541224
“I mean, it’s sort of the overall point here is that in Latin America and elsewhere in third world country, you can make four or five times working as the cook in a mess hall or the security guard for an embassy or the security for truck convoy delivering supplies, you can make four or five times there what you can make in your home country. In Salvador, as a matter of fact, people are quitting military jobs, jobs in the Salvador ran armed forces to line up for and volunteer for the jobs with private security firms, because they will make four or five times what they earn, and on the flip side, the U.S. companies involved in recruiting are going to pay them one-quarter of what they would have to pay if they were recruiting a U.S. citizen to do this work. So there’s a market logic. The Pentagon privatizes this work, and saves in the budget. The employer recruits abroad, and improves their bottom line. And people in these countries are earning more than they might earn working domestically. So, if you look on the strictly sort of economic logic, everybody is making money and the free market is at work. If you ask about the morality of this, it’s a kind of a frightening thing.”
Snow, about what people know about the military and how it is presented to them, there’ll always be a difference no matter what. Does the military recruit especially in poor areas (see article above)? I’m fully aware that joining the army is completely voluntary, but that doesn’t contradict to my remarks above. I agree with you that conscription is a form that’s not going to work much longer since with the current situation you need experts, small units and not large “08/15″-armies as in WWII. Nevertheless, the current system leads to make wars much easier, financially and politically. If the people don’t “feel” the price of wars themselves (but it’s some contracted mercenary from some third world country everybody couldn’t care less about), I guess they’re more inclined to let their government lead the wars they want since the price tag is not that high anymore. Highly questionable developements, if you ask me. (and thx for reading that far ;-) ).