Army Officer Commercial

[Ken White]

Neither. it's the result of self-selection. And the Army keeps going back to the same wells digging deeper and deeper.

Yes, but is that self selection or going to a well that provides bodies when other wells do not?

As for the South being more willing...I'd say that's primarily a result of that being where the bases are.

Certainly true -- recall they are there for three reasons, good weather (relatively, thus more training time per year); unoccupied rural real estate when they were built; not nearly as many environmental hangups and worries as the equally numerous posts that were in the north and west before the enviro / anti -war types congealed to shut them down.

I'm an American who grew up overseas and in NYC. Quite frankly, I feel a lot more comfortable and at home (and have more friends and family) in Rome or Paris or London or Cairo than I do in Texas.

Totally understandable. Reaffirms my point, to an extent. The problem is that there's no way, short of en existential war that there will be post in the norht or far west.

And why is it that the Army advertises during NASCAR races (or so I'm told) but not during golf? Isn't that self-fulfilling?

Certainly, to an extent -- but again, dry wells aren't of much value. You're focusing on officer accessions but the NASCAR ads are focused on Joe.

The Army doesn't consider them and they don't consider the Army.

True and what neither of us can answer is the Chicken - Egg aspect of that. My guess is the Army tends to concentrate on what it thinks it can get and your friends are not likely candidates for accession so it doesn't, as an institution, waste much effort on trying to gather in people who are likely to be concerned about socialization and the caliber of people they may associate with. State and Langley are too of the most 'liberal' agencies in the government, the Army is perceived as being among the most 'conservative' and is therefor unattractive to many, IT is conservative but the people in it are not, they pretty well reflect the nation ideologically; the Army knows this but can see little point in trying to convince many to get very few.

There is also the fact that many of your peers likely consider the Army to be stodgy, not conducive to innovative though and stifling to young go-getters. It is and isn't but the perception that it is rules. I don't think the Army is deliberately eschewing attracting urban elites to the organization -- I think it just realizes that few will come, so why waste time and effort...

Back in the days of ROTC most everywhere, of it being an only mildly derided (as opposed to today's fairly heavy derisory efforts) and a lottery based Draft, there were many more folks from the north and west. Now it's voluntary and they don't seem disposed to volunteer...

[Massengale]

Yes, but is that self selection or going to a well that provides bodies when other wells do not?Certainly true -- recall they are there for three reasons, good weather (relatively, thus more training time per year); unoccupied rural real estate when they were built; not nearly as many environmental hangups and worries as the equally numerous posts that were in the north and west before the enviro / anti -war types congealed to shut them down.Totally understandable. Reaffirms my point, to an extent. The problem is that there's no way, short of en existential war that there will be post in the norht or far west.Certainly, to an extent -- but again, dry wells aren't of much value. You're focusing on officer accessions but the NASCAR ads are focused on Joe.True and what neither of us can answer is the Chicken - Egg aspect of that. My guess is the Army tends to concentrate on what it thinks it can get and your friends are not likely candidates for accession so it doesn't, as an institution, waste much effort on trying to gather in people who are likely to be concerned about socialization and the caliber of people they may associate with. State and Langley are too of the most 'liberal' agencies in the government, the Army is perceived as being among the most 'conservative' and is therefor unattractive to many, IT is conservative but the people in it are not, they pretty well reflect the nation ideologically; the Army knows this but can see little point in trying to convince many to get very few.

There is also the fact that many of your peers likely consider the Army to be stodgy, not conducive to innovative though and stifling to young go-getters. It is and isn't but the perception that it is rules. I don't think the Army is deliberately eschewing attracting urban elites to the organization -- I think it just realizes that few will come, so why waste time and effort...

Back in the days of ROTC most everywhere, of it being an only mildly derided (as opposed to today's fairly heavy derisory efforts) and a lottery based Draft, there were many more folks from the north and west. Now it's voluntary and they don't seem disposed to volunteer...

I think we're probably in general agreement.

1. My concern is that there are severe second-order consequences to the Army and the nation as a result (you have alluded to this as well I think).

2. Considering the conflicts that we are currently in; four LTs with the wrong mentality may well do more harm and less good than one LT with the right mentality.

[Steve Blair]

2. Considering the conflicts that we are currently in; four LTs with the wrong mentality may well do more harm and less good than one LT with the right mentality.

Correct. But who's to say that a group of over-educated urban elites would be any more capable of producing the "right mentality" than their social and cultural opposites? How can you be sure they won't end up looking down their collective noses at folks who don't think the same way they do or aren't as open-minded as they are? I've met plenty of the "elites" who are just as close-minded and opinionated as their more "rural" counterparts...they just use bigger words to convey their disdain. And some of those same folks contributed to the policies and execution that lost that war in Southeast Asia you allude to.

What we need is a mix, and there is no silver bullet to get that. Not even on the more elevated coasts....

[Massengale]

Correct. But who's to say that a group of over-educated urban elites would be any more capable of producing the "right mentality" than their social and cultural opposites? How can you be sure they won't end up looking down their collective noses at folks who don't think the same way they do or aren't as open-minded as they are? I've met plenty of the "elites" who are just as close-minded and opinionated as their more "rural" counterparts...they just use bigger words to convey their disdain. And some of those same folks contributed to the policies and execution that lost that war in Southeast Asia you allude to.

What we need is a mix, and there is no silver bullet to get that. Not even on the more elevated coasts....

true on your conclusion. but kids from the coasts tend to be either a. from first-generation immigrant families or b. are the elites you speak of. in which case they've probably traveled extensively in Asia, the ME or Africa and know other languages (besides Spanish)...which does, in and of itself, lend itself to dealing with other cultural environments. My concern here is with young officers, not the folks who actually get us into wars (that's a separate discussion). I'm not saying that we should get rid of southerners, I'm saying that it might be advantageous for a variety of reasons for the number of young officers from the coasts to be more than the current number, which is infinitesimal. I'm also suggesting that the dominant cultural environment of the Army is hostile to people from the coasts. And I'm tired of hearing that we're not real "Americans." And, yes, the northeastern "elites" do hold all sorts of (mostly but not always wrong) stereotypes about the Army (and the rest of America for that matter). And that hurts recruiting too. But the Army does itself no favors when it acts in ways that reinforces those stereotypes.

[Massengale]

Agreed on the Army encouragement and incentivization of marriage...but that's part and parcel of Army culture too. And like I said, it discourages us single folks from entering. (Never mind that Forscom posts are always placed in areas where the local younger female inhabitants are chain-smoking obese single mothers.)

Considering that over 40% of young officers are from the South and considering where the posts are, I don't see the resistance here to the idea that the Army is culturally dominated by southerners. That's simply inevitable.

I also am unclear on what the opposition is to the logical point that 200 cadets at a relatively low-ranking school are likely to have more mediocrities and turds among them than 200 cadets at a high-ranking school, whether it be Carleton, Emory, the University of Chicago or Columbia. That's just a function of math.

A commander can't change hicks into diplomats overnight.

Until the economy changed everything (very temporarily), look at what happened with enlisted recruiting. They were mining ever deeper and deeper into the same zip codes, having to issue more and more waivers.

[selil]

I also am unclear on what the opposition is to the logical point that 200 cadets at a relatively low-ranking school are likely to have more mediocrities and turds among them than 200 cadets at a high-ranking school, whether it be Carleton, Emory, the University of Chicago or Columbia. That's just a function of math.

Since, there is absolutely NO reasonable reliable current method of ranking schools in any form or fashion. Since, in many cases the best academic schools and the best ROTC programs are joined sets. Since, most of the Ivy Leagues are liberal arts programs, and the military has always decreed that they are interested in engineering talent (oh since Thomas Jefferson and the Morrill Acts of 1862 and 1890).

I wonder why you have such an unfathomable derision for people from the south, midwest and inter-mountain region of the United States. I've never run into this kind of egregious cultural centrism in Bozeman, Durango, Kalamazoo, or Champlain. You continue to refer to people from anywhere but the coasts as turds and mediocrities among other unflattering derisive terms.

[Massengale]

Since, there is absolutely NO reasonable reliable current method of ranking schools in any form or fashion. Since, in many cases the best academic schools and the best ROTC programs are joined sets. Since, most of the Ivy Leagues are liberal arts programs, and the military has always decreed that they are interested in engineering talent (oh since Thomas Jefferson and the Morrill Acts of 1862 and 1890).

I wonder why you have such an unfathomable derision for people from the south, midwest and inter-mountain region of the United States. I've never run into this kind of egregious cultural centrism in Bozeman, Durango, Kalamazoo, or Champlain. You continue to refer to people from anywhere but the coasts as turds and mediocrities among other unflattering derisive terms.

1. I of course said nothing of the kind. (Ok, I don't have much good to say about Killeen or Lawton or Fayettville. Have you been to any of those three?) Better reading comprehension please. For example, you clearly misread the "turds and mediocrities" reference. Try again.

2. yes, the Army has concentrated on engineering and ignored languages, cultural studies, communications and all sorts of other fields that might actually have won some wars for us.

Technology is nice but pictures are often far more important. And we are still very amateurish when it comes to that sort of thing.

[Massengale]

Since, there is absolutely NO reasonable reliable current method of ranking schools in any form or fashion. Since, in many cases the best academic schools and the best ROTC programs are joined sets. Since, most of the Ivy Leagues are liberal arts programs, and the military has always decreed that they are interested in engineering talent (oh since Thomas Jefferson and the Morrill Acts of 1862 and 1890).

I wonder why you have such an unfathomable derision for people from the south, midwest and inter-mountain region of the United States. I've never run into this kind of egregious cultural centrism in Bozeman, Durango, Kalamazoo, or Champlain. You continue to refer to people from anywhere but the coasts as turds and mediocrities among other unflattering derisive terms.

You also failed to notice that I mentioned two midwestern schools and one southern school as examples of "elite" schools. To make the engineers happy I'll add Caltech, CMU and MIT as examples.

[Ken White]

..Considering the conflicts that we are currently in; four LTs with the wrong mentality may well do more harm and less good than one LT with the right mentality.

of a commander not doing his or her job, pure and simple -- not of the accession system or pool.

As for the marriage thing: Army officers used to get married later in life than equivalent civilians. Not so anymore. I'd suggest that's a result of where officers are from.

No, it's a function of economics (it pays more to be married), lust and --in this case, the Army is the culprit -- tacit encouragement of marriage, Officer AND Enlisted because the married people cause less trouble. No matter that they ultimately cost more and are arguably less risk averse than those who are not married and in fact impose a long term burden on the Army. The Army takes a long view on cultural change but is into short termism when it comes to the hassle level on Commanders.

...That 200 cadets from Podunk State are equivalent to 200 cadets from NYU...

That doesn't merit a response but I will note that even the podunks get students from many nations as well as from all over the country. I lived in Manhattan for a couple of years, heard about the same number of racial and ethnic slurs there as I did in San Francisco or Atlanta or hear now on the Redneck Riviera in Florida-- NYC and Boston may even have a slight edge.

No, that isn't an education problem, that's a command failure.

My "stereotype" was specifically of company grades...there's a reason for that. And I stand by it. And when we still have CPTs discussing "haji" and "man-dresses"....I'd suggest that young officers from more diverse backgrounds might turn out to be force multipliers over that (very low) bar.

Previous comment applies -- that's a command failure. You cannot legislate morality or decent behavior -- but you can darn sure dictate it...

Not to mention that your next conflict may be a major high intensity model and that cultural factor will be totally irrelevant...

[bspeer]

Interesting read here on the roots of American bellicosity:

http://www.the-american-interest.com....cfm?piece=620

[Ken White]

Thanks for the link.

[Schmedlap]

I know nothing of how this commercial was focus-grouped, watered down, and coded. My general impression upon viewing it, and after reading through the comments here, is that it is targeted towards family members of potential officers – NOT the officers themselves. I cannot imagine viewing that commercial between the age of 18 and 22 and wanting to join up. On the other hand, my friends and family would probably view it and it would either sustain or improve their perception of military service and it may prompt them to either encourage or not discourage me from pursuing such a career.

Regarding the cultural divide, if any, and the perceived failure to target certain sub-cultures within our country – I think we are reading too much into what may not be there. This was, in my opinion, a very mushy, feel-good, cheery commercial that was light on content – not likely to appeal to ANY potential officer candidates. It appeals to their families.

In regard to targeting the audience of potential recruits/candidates, I still say that the British Royal Marines have cracked the code. I wish we would just copy, paste, alter the uniforms and accents, and repackage it for the Army. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IUcaM_0ztbM

[Ken White]

In regard to targeting the audience of potential recruits/candidates, I still say that the British Royal Marines have cracked the code. I wish we would just copy, paste, alter the uniforms and accents, and repackage it for the Army. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IUcaM_0ztbM

Only if you want to raise and uphold that higher standard. Works for me; would work for a 300-350K person Army that could do more than can the current model.

[Bob's World]

Ok, I just gotta ask: Why use "Massengale" as a screen name?

A good friend and officer I respect tremendously once accused me of being Sam Damon. (A gross overstatement, but a compliment of the highest order). But if someone called me Courtney Massengale I'd be tempted to lay them out.

Particularly curious as we discuss officership on this thread.

(Graduate and commissioned at West Coast podunkville myself. Used to be with considerable justification called "The West Point of the West". Go Beavs!)

[pjmunson]

I admit that I skimmed through a lot of the stereotype slinging and back-and-forth, so I apologize if I am rehashing old ground, but I would like to throw in my two cents. I have met and served with what I think would run pretty well as the best and worst officers from the "elite," the coasts, the south, hickville, etc. While each of these demographics contributes differently and therefore may have more or less examples for others to draw on when making their opinions, I find it hard to believe that any one region or demographic has the corner on soldierly or leadership qualities. All bring something to the table and the qualities of a good officer really come down more to unique personal traits and how an individual deals with them or puts them to work as a leader than any regional or class culture. Things generally get bad, though, when someone falls into a stereotype or, even worse, tries to live a stereotype. The liberal elitist who looks down his nose on the troops, cringes at the arch-conservative banter, and tries to talk like a thesaurus is no worse than the officer who tries to act like a Skoal commercial and thinks he wins cool points by speaking and acting stupid, to the point where a field grade officer opens an address to military, diplomatic, and commercial bigwigs from several nations by drawling, "Even though the military sent me to get a masters degree, I'm still not all that bright." True story.

For those who believe that all the real officers agree with the viewpoints (political, cultural, social, etc) that seem to permeate the service right now, realize that many keep quiet on their positions rather than making for difficult conversation in a professional environment. What I'm saying is that, just because everyone seems to think the same way and act the same way, that doesn't mean we really are all from the same demographic politically, socially, etc. Thus, the negative examples of X demographic that stand out usually stand out because they've sky-lined themselves as a-holes.

Finally, although I made the decision to serve very early on, I think that one of the comments in this thread that essentially dismisses people who -paraphrase- passed up multiple opportunities to serve their country -end paraphrase- is offensive. Not everyone grows up wanting to serve and not everyone who does is really thinking of serving the country. People do it because of family, ROTC money, the cool factor of the job, etc. Those who have had different career paths but then decide one day that they want to have more meaning in life and do something that really matters can be among the most dedicated officers out there and often bring unique views and skills to the fight. It is one thing to be an 18-year old all fired up about shooting guns and playing soldier (some get it some don't), but it is much different to chose after college to enter the service. Aside from it being a job and a relatively secure one, the decision is probably based more on the actual notion of service than it is for many of us who have always wanted to be in the military before we really knew what service meant. If the Army can bring even a few more of these people in, then bravo.

[Ken White]

During that entire period, all of the Services have pretty well represented the society of the day from which they come. Among the better educated in the US, the Navy has always been more socially acceptable, the AF and Marines wander back and forth in second and third place and the Army is always the least accepted socially. All the services have varied over time in what that acceptance means and it has had various impacts on recruiting and officer accessions. There has always been a rural/urban, an East/West and a North/South disconnect -- mild but present. We're a very large nation with over 300M people. Lot of variations. By and large though, the services have generally been supported by most in the nation and most people in the service have adapted to others without major trauma. Far better today than it was about the time of Korea -- major riots occurred over States of birth and such, to include killed (very few) and wounded (most lightly). Those days are gone and good thing -- lets the MPs and Shore Patrol have an easier life.

It's also been my observation that the amount of religious fervor or noise, general social attitudes among service people and more pretty much reflect the nation and that changes over time. I've seen totally irreligious periods and others where it blossomed a bit. There was a religious upswing in the late 40s and early 50s that dissipated, virtually nil in the 60s and 70s, started up again in the 80s, peaked in the 90s, dropping again today. It goes in cycles...

My personal belief is that there are more officers and EM of a politically 'liberal' persuasion than there are those inclined to be 'conservatives.' As many or more vote Democratic as Republican. NCOs generally reverse that, the result is pretty much political equilibrium. That with the caveat that for several reasons, it can vary a bit by type unit and where the unit's located. As pjmunson said, most just don't go on about it -- and should not; no one should even come close to trying to sway the troops one way or another. Some will err and do that and they should be called on it if it occurs.

The issue of those wanting or not wanting to serve is colored by several things. I do not want to see a draft and think one is highly unlikely but back when we did have one, it brought in a lot of people to include to the Navy, Marines and AF -- those who were going to get drafted and did not want to go in the Army so they enlisted -- even Doctors, who would never have volunteered but once they were in, found something to like and stayed in. with the elimination of the draft, we went to pure volunteers. We're better off for it. I'd even go for fewer of them; we waste a bit of man and woman power here and there...

I never had a problem with those that did not want to serve -- too many people in uniform now that do not really want to be there. It's not a job for everyone and I'd rather go to war with four or five motivated people than a dozen or more run of the mill sorta wantas. Nor do I have any problem with those who don't want to be combat types; that sure isn't a job for everyone. I stopped trying to get people to stay in over 50 years ago when one kid I had tried to encourage to reenlist said "Sergeant, you're okay but there are a lot of people here who aren't and the only thing I've learned in the Army is to say MF and eat with a big spoon." I have never even considered asking or encouraging anyone to join or stay after that...

[Courtney Massengale]

Ok, I just gotta ask: Why use "Massengale" as a screen name?

A good friend and officer I respect tremendously once accused me of being Sam Damon. (A gross overstatement, but a compliment of the highest order). But if someone called me Courtney Massengale I'd be tempted to lay them out.

Particularly curious as we discuss officership on this thread.

(Graduate and commissioned at West Coast podunkville myself. Used to be with considerable justification called "The West Point of the West". Go Beavs!)

I can only speak for myself and not the other guy who has just "massengale"...

The Officers I have known who view the Corps as populated by either Sam Damons or Courtney Massengales tend to have difficulties determining the difference between reality and fiction. If you choose to emulate a fictional protagonist dreamed up by a Marine E-5 as your Army leadership role model, something has gone horribly wrong.

And let’s not forget that Sad Sam cheated on his wife and resorts to tossing people down stairs or threatening to fight them in a warehouse if they don’t agree with him.

In the name of full disclosure, my second boss in the Army was a Major who viewed himself as Sam Damon and had a gigantic black and white photo of The Duke in The Green Berets in his office. He was woefully incompetent (light guy in a heavy unit syndrome) and used obtuse and uneven methods to “prove” he was Sam Damon. Which, by default, made the rest of us (ie everyone) who didn’t fit his self-fulfilling criteria….

*thunder*lightning*

Courtney Massengales

[Bob's World]

I can only speak for myself and not the other guy who has just "massengale"...

The Officers I have known who view the Corps as populated by either Sam Damons or Courtney Massengales tend to have difficulties determining the difference between reality and fiction. If you choose to emulate a fictional protagonist dreamed up by a Marine E-5 as your Army leadership role model, something has gone horribly wrong.

And let’s not forget that Sad Sam cheated on his wife and resorts to tossing people down stairs or threatening to fight them in a warehouse if they don’t agree with him.

In the name of full disclosure, my second boss in the Army was a Major who viewed himself as Sam Damon and had a gigantic black and white photo of The Duke in The Green Berets in his office. He was woefully incompetent (light guy in a heavy unit syndrome) and used obtuse and uneven methods to “prove” he was Sam Damon. Which, by default, made the rest of us (ie everyone) who didn’t fit his self-fulfilling criteria….

*thunder*lightning*

Courtney Massengales

But for someone with such an aversion to taking what a Marine E-5 dreams up seriously, you did name yourself after a character he dreamed up to represent everything bad in self-serving, career oriented officers.

Just seems odd to me, but that's just me.

And as you noted, your self-deluded former boss was no Sam Damon, but then no one is or was.

I've always said I've learned from everyone I ever worked for or with. Either how to do something, or how not to. Trick in life is to pick your role models wisely. As to once an eagle, I enjoyed the book and could empathize more with Damon, no more, no less.

[Greyhawk]

Timely poll result

WASHINGTON, Aug. 7, 2009 – U.S. military officers have “very great prestige,” and their status is climbing, according to a poll released this week.

...More than half of those polled gave military officers top marks, saying that the position held very great prestige. Military officers tied with teachers for 51 percent.

I left the teacher reference in there just for Uboat509. More interesting to me is the steady upward track from 1982.

On demographics: without digging for supporting documentation, I expect a significant portion of the "southern" skew in recruiting figures is also due to the many military brats (I use the term as a father of three myself) with southern addresses because that's where their parents are stationed/retired. The imbalance is not geographic, it is family tradition vs nonesuch - something that is the same for most professions.

On another note, much of the current civilian view of the military is still informed by living memory of the WWII (and post-WWII) military - which was the historical exception, and not the rule it's often described as now. ("our current military is small and detached from larger population" - true but actually the norm in U.S. history). By "living memory" I mean in particular the experience of many who were not "right" for military service but who endured (in most cases honorably and many with distinction) a few years of it as very low-ranking individuals under the worst possible conditions.

And how many bright, young (Ivy-educated or otherwise) folks with world-changing/saving ideas are going to "survive" the first five or so years when "sir yes sir" is the right response to everything? Especially when they know they are the smartest in the room (a room full of people for whom "smart" appears inversely proportional to time in service/experience) and no one will listen?

[Ken White]

On demographics...also due to the many military brats (I use the term as a father of three myself) with southern addresses because that's where their parents are stationed/retired.

...all us Fathers of three of 'em, that's a good point. One that had totally slipped my small, retired in the south mind.

And how many bright, young (Ivy-educated or otherwise) ... (a room full of people for whom "smart" appears inversely proportional to time in service/experience) and no one will listen?

...all us old guys who are just jaded, not stupid.

I submit that part of that problem is that we've heard it all before from dozens of bright youngsters coming from all areas of the nation, we're just waiting for one of 'em to come up with something truly innovative or different, achievable within the system and not too self referential. Not necessarily in that order.

Good post, Greyhawk.