Army Officer Commercial

[Ron Humphrey]

It would also help if the Army didn't do everything possible to culturally exclude people from the coasts from coming in.

But since you make quite clear "exclusion" and "coasts" it seems quite likely your alluding to Lifestyle Choices. Do I get a cookie

[Massengale]

I'm referring to the Army commissioned officer culture (especially at the company grade level) being primarily southern/midwestern. NASCAR, fishing, pickups and dip v. hybrids and theater. Binge drinking (or teetotalling) v. wine with dinner. The assumption that everyone is married. The assumption that non-SM spouses are either homemakers or have careers that can be plied even in the most remote locations. Etc. And then an unspoken (and sometimes spoken) assumption that people on the coasts aren't really Americans and that cosmopolitan officers are weird.

The other branches don't seem to have this problem...it's Army specific.

In 2004 over 40% of new Army officers were from the south. 18% from the midwest. 18% from the northwest. 18% from the west. the number from the northeast is too small to measure. even on the West Coast there were something like three ROTC grads out of the U Cal system last year. 34 out of NYC total in 2006 in comparison to 200 from Alabama.

http://columbiamilitary.blogspot.com...ics-urban.html

http://www.military.com/NewsContent/...126186,00.html

[Massengale]

one interesting take:

http://handle.dtic.mil/100.2/ADA493829

[Ken White]

Is that culture you refer to an Army imposed culture or is it the culture of your 40% South plus 18% Midwest and perhaps a few of the others preferring those cultural icons to the alternatives you cite? I think there's a correlation versus a causation problem there...

On the wives and such, again what is the national, not the culturally elite, norm? On that topic, recall that military forces are by nature conservative and slow to change. The wife and wife / career issues have been around since the early 70s -- that they are still a problem is an indicator of the often glacial pace of military social change. I doubt that will ever go away -- and, FWIW, the other services have that problem as well.

You might also consider that the South has been over represented in the Army only since the Draft ended. I think that says something about the presence of a willingness to serve that is more in evidence in some parts of the nation than in others.

On the ROTC issue, is that not in part due to the fact that belonging to ROTC -- more particularly Army ROTC -- on many campuses is not at all politically correct on both a faculty and peer basis? Recall that many Ivy league schools opted out of hosting Army ROTC in the late 1960s and now do not want to let it back in -- ostensibly due to objections to Don't Ask, Don't Tell.

The paper by COL Wendel which you linked is, I think accurate and I agree with his recommendations. He, I think is missing one critical point which I address below. He makes a few statement that allude to it around the edges, this one, for example:

"Mutual distrust between the nation's political elites and military leaders could ultimately undercut American foreign policy, making it more difficult to use force effectively."

That sentence is notable for its understatement...

You correctly point out that the same social conduct attributes do not apply to other services; that is a residual of the New England born and widely disseminated idea that the Army was the refuge of thieves and scoundrels whereas the Navy and to a lesser extent, the Marines were somewhat socially acceptable (too many seafarers in New England to reject the Navy totally ). The Navy is presumed by most in this country to be a socially acceptable profession -- barely so in a few circles but still acceptable. The Air Force is slightly less acceptable, then the Marines and the poor old Army is at the bottom, the social sewer as it were. That has far more impact on persons from the coasts (and from tertiarily educated families nationwide) entering the services than do any of the things you cite.

That attitude in part reflects the historical opposition to a standing Army in this country and it partly reflects the strong anti military / antiwar bias present in Academia which has been imparted to many students over the past 30 plus years.

However, it is far more a reflection of social change in this country. As recently as fifty years ago, kids pretty well left home for good at 18 or thereabouts and Dad broke their plate to remind them it was tough world and they had to be able to take care of themselves. Since then this nation has been effectively 'Momized.' Moms do not break plates, on the contrary they welcome their offspring back even unto the 30th or 40th year; encourage it, even -- and the Moms of America do not want their Sons and Daughters in a socially questionable organization and absolutely do not want them in a position to engage in close combat with unsavory people.

[JarodParker]

The Army, proving once again, that it doesn't understand how to recruit, retain and develop junior Officers.

I’d argue that this commercial is a step in the right direction, at least marketing wise. Actual recruitment/applicant processing/ candidate mentorship is a different story.

I'm not really sure what specific demographic they had in mind as this method seems to be aimed at people who don't have USMA, OCS, or ROTC available as an option to them

It’s aimed at everybody: high schoolers, college students and grads since the commercial made a point of showing soldiers in OCS, ROTC and WP gear.

(as each have their own robust recruiting for their target demographic).

I disagree with you here. The Army doesn’t do nearly enough to recruit for OCS at least it didn’t about a year ago when I was researching the subject. A majority of teens and 20 or 30 year olds don’t know the difference between enlisted and officer, much less the different officer accession routes, especially OCS. Even if they knew, they are likely to encounter an enlisted recruiter who will try to tell them they have to enlist and serve first in order to become an officer.

I’ve always been skeptical of the argument that the Officer Corps is in direct competition with Corporate America for college graduates – they’re in direct competition with college admissions and enlisted recruitment as the choice to use ROTC or USMA is made back in high school.

The choice to apply for the USMA is made back in high school. Cadets decide to join the ROTC at different times; some before college, other during their freshman, sophomore or even later years.

The notion that there is the untapped pool of people who passed up multiple chances to serve their country, but since earning a degree are just waiting for someone to ask if they want to be an Officer, is flat out silly.

How is it silly? I can’t find the PDF at the moment and the Marine Officer site has been changed but there was a breakdown of all the USMC commissioning sources and I’d say about 20% were OCC graduates (people who already have degree in hand).

[Courtney Massengale]

Wow, go home, come back the next day and there's three pages and somebody who has stolen my last name! AND he hates the midwest!

How is it silly? I can’t find the PDF at the moment and the Marine Officer site has been changed but there was a breakdown of all the USMC commissioning sources and I’d say about 20% were OCC graduates (people who already have degree in hand).

The Marine Corps is a very different animal in how they generate officers - there isn't "Marine ROTC" or "Marine Academy" (there's some kind of competitive program inside Naval commissioning iirc). I'm not really sure you can hold those numbers up to the other three services and make a fair comparison. There's a different process and a different pool that they are "making" Marine Officers from.

(insert Ain't Ready for the Marines Yet joke here)

[MattM]

The Marine Corps is a very different animal in how they generate officers - there isn't "Marine ROTC" or "Marine Academy" (there's some kind of competitive program inside Naval commissioning iirc). I'm not really sure you can hold those numbers up to the other three services and make a fair comparison. There's a different process and a different pool that they are "making" Marine Officers from.

Having served as an assistant to a very successful Officer Selection Officer, the most pervasive challenge is communicating to potential applicants what it means to serve as an officer. The difference between the enlisted and officer ranks are not well understood in any region of this nation.

If the US Army has a self interest in recruiting from U.S. News's top 20 schools in America, it will do so. Based on some of the things Courtney has posted, I predict that the US Army has not found that the performance matches the pretentiousness among these students. My view is that these are students who have always been successful among their peer group, and have always had good options (and resources) available to them. Therefore, to tell these students that: the branch they serve in, the continent they live on, and the people they spend time with will all be determined in a lottery process, conducted by a committee someplace else, is simply not going to work.

Lastly, if these students are the academic and cultural elites they think they are they should have no challenge finding worthwhile things to do wherever they go. If they are worn out by a lack of urbane attractions, do they possess the resilience to serve as a military officer?

I have served with Marine lieutenants from MIT, Harvard, Duke, Georgetown, and Cornell. Also, I have served lieutenants who had founded companies or launched satellites with major corporations. Once they hit the fleet, the playing field was very level. Only the MIT student stands out (small sample, like the awful study the colonel published on page 1).

[Ken White]

Very good, in fact. BZ.

[Massengale]

Is that culture you refer to an Army imposed culture or is it the culture of your 40% South plus 18% Midwest and perhaps a few of the others preferring those cultural icons to the alternatives you cite? I think there's a correlation versus a causation problem there...

On the wives and such, again what is the national, not the culturally elite, norm? On that topic, recall that military forces are by nature conservative and slow to change. The wife and wife / career issues have been around since the early 70s -- that they are still a problem is an indicator of the often glacial pace of military social change. I doubt that will ever go away -- and, FWIW, the other services have that problem as well.

You might also consider that the South has been over represented in the Army only since the Draft ended. I think that says something about the presence of a willingness to serve that is more in evidence in some parts of the nation than in others.

On the ROTC issue, is that not in part due to the fact that belonging to ROTC -- more particularly Army ROTC -- on many campuses is not at all politically correct on both a faculty and peer basis? Recall that many Ivy league schools opted out of hosting Army ROTC in the late 1960s and now do not want to let it back in -- ostensibly due to objections to Don't Ask, Don't Tell.

The paper by COL Wendel which you linked is, I think accurate and I agree with his recommendations. He, I think is missing one critical point which I address below. He makes a few statement that allude to it around the edges, this one, for example:That sentence is notable for its understatement...

You correctly point out that the same social conduct attributes do not apply to other services; that is a residual of the New England born and widely disseminated idea that the Army was the refuge of thieves and scoundrels whereas the Navy and to a lesser extent, the Marines were somewhat socially acceptable (too many seafarers in New England to reject the Navy totally ). The Navy is presumed by most in this country to be a socially acceptable profession -- barely so in a few circles but still acceptable. The Air Force is slightly less acceptable, then the Marines and the poor old Army is at the bottom, the social sewer as it were. That has far more impact on persons from the coasts (and from tertiarily educated families nationwide) entering the services than do any of the things you cite.

That attitude in part reflects the historical opposition to a standing Army in this country and it partly reflects the strong anti military / antiwar bias present in Academia which has been imparted to many students over the past 30 plus years.

However, it is far more a reflection of social change in this country. As recently as fifty years ago, kids pretty well left home for good at 18 or thereabouts and Dad broke their plate to remind them it was tough world and they had to be able to take care of themselves. Since then this nation has been effectively 'Momized.' Moms do not break plates, on the contrary they welcome their offspring back even unto the 30th or 40th year; encourage it, even -- and the Moms of America do not want their Sons and Daughters in a socially questionable organization and absolutely do not want them in a position to engage in close combat with unsavory people.

"Is that culture you refer to an Army imposed culture or is it the culture of your 40% South plus 18% Midwest and perhaps a few of the others preferring those cultural icons to the alternatives you cite? I think there's a correlation versus a causation problem there..."

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

As for the South being more willing...I'd say that's primarily a result of that being where the bases are. It's a heck of a lot less of a culture shock for a young LT from Alabama to end up at Polk than one from Manhattan. 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. There are millions of Americans like me. Where the posts are is going to be a harder sell than to a southerner who is assured of mostly staying at home (when not deployed). So the Army becomes a much easier sell to southerners than to the coasts (who by the way aren't just composed of "liberal elites" but also millions of first generation immigrants...a traditional military favorable category that the other branches manage to recruit quite well).

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?

Many of my peers back in NY are multilingual, uber-well-traveled, educated and in excellent physical fitness. Many of them are willing to do something of public service for much less than private-sector money. They often end up in the foreign service or at Langley. But being unmarried, usually not Christian and a heavy traveler (the DOD pass/leave policies are obviously archaic and asinine) does not fit into Army culture, not well at all. The Army doesn't consider them and they don't consider the Army.

[Massengale]

"Is that culture you refer to an Army imposed culture or is it the culture of your 40% South plus 18% Midwest and perhaps a few of the others preferring those cultural icons to the alternatives you cite? I think there's a correlation versus a causation problem there..."

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

As for the South being more willing...I'd say that's primarily a result of that being where the bases are. It's a heck of a lot less of a culture shock for a young LT from Alabama to end up at Polk than one from Manhattan. 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. There are millions of Americans like me. Where the posts are is going to be a harder sell than to a southerner who is assured of mostly staying at home (when not deployed). So the Army becomes a much easier sell to southerners than to the coasts (who by the way aren't just composed of "liberal elites" but also millions of first generation immigrants...a traditional military favorable category that the other branches manage to recruit quite well).

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?

Many of my peers back in NY are multilingual, uber-well-traveled, educated and in excellent physical fitness. Many of them are willing to do something of public service for much less than private-sector money. They often end up in the foreign service or at Langley. But being unmarried, usually not Christian and a heavy traveler (the DOD pass/leave policies are obviously archaic and asinine) does not fit into Army culture, not well at all. The Army doesn't consider them and they don't consider the Army.

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.

[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....

[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

[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!)

[Uboat509]

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

Or it could be that there is a tradition of military service in the South and the Midwest that goes back many generations. Or maybe it's the fact that the South and Midwest are more politically conservative and therefore don't tend to look down on military service as being for the uneducated or sociopathic. I'm no scientist but I suspect that it is not a coincidence that red states provide tend to provide more recruits than blue states.

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?

Hard to say. Maybe the Army hired an ad agency who then did research to determine the best place to spend the Army's advertising dollars. Maybe they discovered that you can find more people at a NASCAR event who are willing to enlist than at a golf tournament. I don't know.

Many of my peers back in NY are multilingual, uber-well-traveled, educated and in excellent physical fitness. Many of them are willing to do something of public service for much less than private-sector money. They often end up in the foreign service or at Langley. But being unmarried, usually not Christian and a heavy traveler (the DOD pass/leave policies are obviously archaic and asinine) does not fit into Army culture, not well at all. The Army doesn't consider them and they don't consider the Army.

First of all, what civilian job have you had, or even heard of, that gives you thirty days of paid leave a year plus obscene amounts of three and four day weekends? I'm getting close to retirement and I want to find that job.

Second, there is a world of difference between foreign service or service at Langley and military service. I was born in New Jersey and raised in Suburban Pennsylvania. I went to a private high school with exactly the people that you are describing. My parents still belong to a country club in Jersey where they play golf with those kinds of people. If you are honestly trying to tell me that the only thing keeping them out of the Army is the Army is too Christian and too pro-marriage and doesn't give enough time off, I'm just not going to buy it.

SFC W

[selil]

First of all, what civilian job have you had, or even heard of, that gives you thirty days of paid leave a year plus obscene amounts of three and four day weekends? I'm getting close to retirement and I want to find that job.

It is called Academia. 3 months off a year, most federal holidays, a Xmas break, a Thanksgiving break, and Spring Break. Especially in Ivy League colleges.

[Uboat509]

It is called Academia. 3 months off a year, most federal holidays, a Xmas break, a Thanksgiving break, and Spring Break. Especially in Ivy League colleges.

You got me, Selil. I am actually pursuing a degree in military history with an eye towards a masters so that I can eventually teach. But other than academia, what jobs give you that time off?

SFC W

[SWJED]

But one irritation - They lead from island to island - with American Caesar Douglas MacArthur in the footage - well - I would beg to say that Chester Nimitz would be that leader.

And a little known fact concerning George Washington crossing the Delaware River (They lead across frozen rivers):

Washington's crossing of the Delaware, occurring on December 25, 1776 during the American Revolutionary War, was the first move in a surprise attack against the Hessian forces in Trenton, New Jersey at the Battle of Trenton. Final preparation for the attack was begun on December 23. On December 24 Washington ordered that each man be provided with three days rations and that they keep their blankets handy. He also ordered that security be tightened at each river crossing. The Durham boats used to bring the army across the Delaware from New Jersey were brought down from Malta Island near New Hope and hidden behind Taylor Island at McKonkey's Ferry. A final planning meeting took place on December 24, with all of the General Officers present. General Orders were issued by Washington on December 25 outlining plans for the march and attack. Just prior to the commencement of H-hour, an advance / lead party consisting of 7 Continental Marines pushed off and aided the advance of the main party, to include General Washington's boat, through the utilization of aft-facing black out candles mounted on their Trimountaine Whalers - a boat considered by many at the time as “unsinkable". Legend has it that 4 of the 7 Marines were deemed “liberty risks” by Continental Army military constable officials within an hour of landing in the vicinity of Trenton.