PLAY AT YOUR OWN RISK

This new recruiting initiative by my employer brings me back to 2003 when I went on the US Army "Taking it to the Streets Tour". My employer spends alot of money marketing their brand and do a pretty thorough demographics analysis. For example, the country is divided up into recruiting battalions or divisions and then are broken down into districts or something like that. My employer tries very hard to recruit all ethnicities/demos but honestly, you don't see too many Asians or S. Asians -anyway, if the districts are falling short in one ethno-demo, they make an effort to narrow market/advertise in hopes of reaching their ethno-qouta. The "Taking It To The Streets" tour was targeted towards Blacks and Latinos in under performing high schools(a lot of options there right?) My employer hired several Ethno-owned ad agencies-the ones that mostly do all the colored ads for MickyD's, Burger King, etc. that you see on TV-to coordinate this TTTS tour. So we went around the lower half the country in tricked out pimp my ride hummers complete with playstations/video monitors and alot of freebies. We were dressed up in timberlands, black fatigues and black shirts that had my employer's brand name on it. We were to be the sidekicks to the recruiters when they came to these schools to discuss career ops in the Army. I guess the ad agencies and my employer thought that by pairing homeboys with recruiters, it would make the Army appear less threatening and more hip/cool. So we show up at a high school, give these pseudo recruiter speeches in a language the kids could understand while the recruiters chilled in the background. We pass out promo brochures, free copies of the Army's first person shooter game, and other trinkets to these kids...Damn that was 6 years ago.

Looking back and now seeing where I am-my perspective on that campaign and what the Army is doing now is kinda mixed. Given the current economic downturn and the high cost of education, it's a perfect storm for my employer to get a lot of folks in and in some cases quite a few who don't have the luxury of being discerning about the big picture such a commitment entails. I think like any big corporation, if one is not aware of the hustle/game-one will get got and taken advantage of. It is also easy for a lot of us-who are a few rungs up on the socio-economic ladder to thumb our noses at practices that my employer takes to get people signed up. But here's something to think about, alot of these kids/young adults might not of had the same ops as you and I and therefore do not know or aren't aware of the big picture or have the ability/means to make better choices. So they join the army/military to hopefully create/make options for themselves-so they can possibly get a leg up on that ladder like you and I and hopefully climb. I consider myself a liberal but I also know that label is easy to hide behind and throw rocks with nothing on the line, it's like a dog all bark, no bite...comfort is king and we pick our battles-God forbid we get caught out there...I'm not one to laugh at anyone's misfortune at this dark period in our country's economic life but this recession/depression will least for some, bring a few of them down a couple of notches. And maybe possibly it will open their eyes see how the other side has to get by. HUSTLE IS THE NEW WORD-cause that is what each and everyone of us is gonna have to do/refine/create or find in order to be comfortable...Health/dental benefits, a check on the 1st and 15th, housing and educational opportunities in such things as the corporate hierarchy, foreign policy implementation, college tuition and physical fitness during this economic downturn against the backdrop of 2 wars might be a tempting offer instead of unemployment/eviction/foreclosure and possibly a brush with petty crime. Interesting choices...

New Army recruit joke: "How do you know a recruiter is lying?"
Ans. "He or she moves their lips."

The article below reminded me of that 2003 Army tour.

---

January 5, 2009
NY TIMES

Urban Tool in Recruiting by the Army: An Arcade

By JOHN LELAND

PHILADELPHIA — Amid the last-minute shopping bustle, the voice in the Black Hawk helicopter simulator shouted with an urgency that exceeded even the holiday mall frenzy.

“Enemy right! Enemy right!”

Triggers squeezed. Pixels exploded. Shopping waited.

At the Franklin Mills mall here, past the Gap Outlet and the China Buddha Express, is a $13 million video arcade that the Army hopes will become a model for recruitment in urban areas, where the armed services typically have a hard time attracting recruits.

The Army Experience Center is a fitting counterpart to the retail experience: 14,500 square feet of mostly shoot-’em-up video games and three full-scale simulators, including an AH-64 Apache Longbow helicopter, an armed Humvee and a Black Hawk copter with M4 carbine assault rifles. For those who want to take the experience deeper, the center has 22 recruiters. Or for more immediate full-contact mayhem, there are the outlet stores.

The facility, which opened in August, is the first of its kind. It replaces five smaller recruitment stations in the Philadelphia area, at about the same annual operating cost, not counting the initial expenses, said Maj. Larry Dillard, the program manager. Philadelphia has been a particularly difficult area for recruitment.

The Army recruited 80,517 active personnel in the fiscal year that ended in October, slightly surpassing its goal of 80,000, though as in recent years it fell below its goal of having 90 percent of recruits be high school graduates.

In recent years the Army has tried a number of ways to increase enlistment, including home video games, direct marketing promotions, a stronger online presence and recruitment-themed music videos. In 2007 it added bonuses of up to $2,000 for Army reservists who signed up new recruits. Civil liberties groups have criticized the Pentagon for its efforts to reach high school students.

But while recruitment remains strong in rural areas where there are military bases, it is weak in cities like Philadelphia, Major Dillard said. “The question is, how can we get our stories out to urban centers where most of the population lives, but where we don’t have a big presence?” he said. He added that the center did not recruit anyone under 17.

On a recent afternoon, about a dozen more-to-less-likely recruits stepped away from the mall’s screaming markdowns to try the simulators and play free video games, including Madden football and Rainbow Six: Vegas.

Mikel Smith, 19, and Jovan McCreary, 21, sat at Alienware game stations, maneuvering the camouflaged antiterrorist troopers of Rainbow Six through a series of casinos under siege. Muzzles flared on screen; sounds burst in their headphones.

“We’re just here to play the games,” said Mr. Smith, who said he was not considering enlisting in the Army. At the sign-in desk, where visitors fill out an information sheets and receive bar-coded photo identification cards, he indicated that he did not want to be contacted by a recruiter.

Beside Mr. Smith, Mr. McCreary leaned back in his black mesh chair. “I got the same game at home, but it’s better here,” he said. He, too, was not interested in the Army Experience Center’s other purposes. “We’re going to college next year,” he said.

First Sgt. Randy Jennings, the supervising officer on this day, said the center’s intent was not just to recruit personnel, but also to inform young people about the Army, in an area where they have little contact with service members. Most recruits live near rural bases.

If the program is deemed a success, the Army might replicate it in other cities.

“We want to put people in the Army, but that’s about our third priority,” Sergeant Jennings said, gesturing to a kiosk with descriptions of 179 jobs in the Army, including details on salaries and benefits. “Most people think joining the Army means being a grunt, and that Iraq equals death. We try to show them that there’s more to the Army than carrying a gun. If people come in here and they learn that but they don’t join, that’s O.K.”

Most of the staff — both military and civilian — wore casual clothing; there was no hard sell. Conversations with recruiters might take place in an adjacent room or the central lounge area, where there were comfortable leather chairs and a soundtrack of Jane’s Addiction and the Red Hot Chili Peppers. But on this afternoon, the only action was on the video games and simulators.

The three simulators play out missions to support the delivery of humanitarian aid in Iraq or Afghanistan; unlike in the video games, the participants do not come under fire.

In recent years, the Army has had great success with using video games like America’s Army to attract recruits. But for the Army Experience Center, the results so far have been less than spectacular. Since it opened, about 35 visitors have enlisted. That is slightly below the previous recruitment rate at the five smaller stations, Sergeant Jennings said, at a time when the slumping economy would be expected to drive more people to enlist.

“We’re not at the point where we can say this is an effective strategy,” Major Dillard said, adding that the Army had not set a numerical threshold for success for the center.

“We won’t be measured by the number of people we put in the Army,” Sgt. Jennings said. “We’re basically a learning lab for the military, a way for us to interact with kids and find out what they’re interested in. People are going to join the Army, whether we had this or four or five recruitment stations.”

At another video console, Graceson George, 29, a graduate student at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School in Chicago, led a squad of Army special forces through the battle zones of the game Ghost Recon.

He said that he was considering enlisting, but that he had spinal problems that might limit his ability to serve.

“I just wanted to see exactly what they provide,” Mr. George said. “We got a briefing on what the Army is all about. It’s a great experience serving this country, and it takes commitment and determination. They said there were other areas I can get involved. So I said, give me time.”

Mr. George said he did not think the video game accurately conveyed the combat experience.

“In this one, you can die as much as you like, but in real war it’s not possible,” he said. “The reality of military service is beyond what you think. Here you can go back and replay, but in real life if you get shot you get shot. So it’s an entertainment, but it makes you think.”

He turned back to the combat on the screen. In the cocoon of the headphones, he did not hear the sound of prices hitting the floor.

WHILE YOU'RE AT IT, CAN YOU ADD INTERNET SERVICE AND NEW COMPUTERS FOR OUR OFFICE TOO?

Here's an enlightening article from the NY Times dated 21 Dec 2008 below about the cost of maintaining a 21st century military. There's alot on the list I agree with. We're no longer fighting across huge expanses of territory like in the good ol' Cold War days. Even Russia's invasion of Georgia/Odessa was a low intensity conflict. But the fact remains, we are still lagging in getting up to speed in creating a streamlined, fluid fighting force that reflects today's warfare. Continued guerrilla warfare and information warfare are my predictions of what's ahead. Here's a few things to add on this list:

1. 3G or better internet networks for all Army Public Affairs Offices and Detachments along with better computers(wish it could be a Mac world).

2. Blackberries or Google Android Phones to keep up to date on late breaking command information.

3. A change from the M-4 to the HK416 weapon.

4. Basic combat training that emphasizes more modern conflict scenarios instead of outdated cold war training doctrine.

5. Better fitting Army ACU's like the Marine Corps. Let's hire their tailor.

6. Better chow hall food presentation. As Napoleon once said, "An army marches on it's stomach."

December 21, 2008

NY TIMES Editorial

How to Pay for a 21st-Century Military

In recent weeks, this page has called for major changes in America’s armed forces: more ground forces, less reliance on the Reserves, new equipment and training to replace cold-war weapons systems and doctrines.

Money will have to be found to pay for all of this, and the Pentagon can no longer be handed a blank check, as happened throughout the Bush years.

Since 2001, basic defense spending has risen by 40 percent in real post-inflation dollars. That is not counting the huge supplemental budgets passed — with little serious review or debate — each year to pay for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Such unquestioned largess has shielded the Pentagon from any real pressure to cut unneeded weapons systems and other wasteful expenses.

As a result, there is plenty of fat in the defense budget. Here is what we think can be cut back or canceled in order to pay for new equipment and other reforms that are truly essential to keep this country safe:

End production of the Air Force’s F-22. The F-22 was designed to ensure victory in air-to-air dogfights with the kind of futuristic fighters that the Soviet Union did not last long enough to build. The Air Force should instead rely on its version of the new high-performance F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, which comes into production in 2012 and like the F-22 uses stealth technology to elude enemy radar.

Until then, it can use upgraded versions of the F-16, which can outperform anything now flown by any potential foe. The F-35 will provide a still larger margin of superiority. The net annual savings: about $3 billion.

Cancel the DDG-1000 Zumwalt class destroyer. This is a stealthy blue water combat ship designed to fight the kind of midocean battles no other nation is preparing to wage. The Navy can rely on the existing DDG-51 Arleigh Burke class destroyer, a powerful, well-armed ship that incorporates the advanced Aegis combat system for tracking and destroying multiple air, ship and submarine targets. The Navy has sharply cut back the number of Zumwalts on order from 32 to two.

Cutting the last two could save more than $3 billion a year that should be used to buy more of the littoral combat ships that are really needed. Those ships can move quickly in shallow offshore waters and provide helicopter and other close-in support for far more likely ground combat operations.

Halt production of the Virginia class sub. Ten of these unneeded attack submarines — modeled on the cold-war-era Seawolf, whose mission was to counter Soviet attack and nuclear launch submarines — have already been built. The program is little more than a public works project to keep the Newport News, Va., and Groton, Conn., naval shipyards in business.

The Navy can extend the operating lives of the existing fleet of Los Angeles class fast-attack nuclear submarines, which can capably perform all needed post-cold-war missions — from launching cruise missiles to countering China’s expanding but technologically inferior submarine fleet. Net savings: $2.5 billion.

Pull the plug on the Marine Corps’s V-22 Osprey. After 25 years of trying, this futuristic and unnecessary vertical takeoff and landing aircraft has yet to prove reliable or safe. The 80 already built are more than enough. Instead of adding 400 more, the Marine Corps should buy more of the proven H-92 and CH-53 helicopters. Net savings: $2 billion to 2.5 billion.

Halt premature deployment of missile defense. The Pentagon wants to spend roughly $9 billion on ballistic missile defense next year. That includes money to deploy additional interceptors in Alaska and build new installations in central Europe. After spending some $150 billion over the past 25 years, the Pentagon has yet to come up with a national missile defense system reliable enough to provide real security. The existing technology can be easily fooled by launching cheap metal decoys along with an incoming warhead.

We do not minimize the danger from ballistic missiles. We agree there should be continued testing and research on more feasible approaches. Since the most likely threat would come from Iran or North Korea, there should be serious discussions with the Russians about a possible joint missile defense program. (We know the system poses no threat to Russia, but it is time to take away the excuse.) A research program would cost about $5 billion annually, for a net savings of nearly $5 billion.

Negotiate deep cuts in nuclear weapons. Under the 2002 Moscow Treaty, the United States and Russia committed to reduce their strategic nuclear weapons to between 1,700 and 2,200 each by 2012. There has been no discussion of any further cuts. A successor treaty should have significantly lower limits — between 1,000 and 1,400, with a commitment to go lower.

President-elect Barack Obama should also take all ballistic missiles off hair-trigger alert and commit to reducing the nation’s absurdly large stock of backup warheads. These steps will make the world safer. It will give Mr. Obama a lot more credibility to press others to rein in their nuclear ambitions.

It is hard to say just how much money would be saved with these reductions, but in the long term, the amount would certainly be considerable.

Trim the active-duty Navy and Air Force. The United States enjoys total dominance of the world’s seas and skies and will for many years to come. The Army and the Marines have proved too small for the demands of simultaneous ground wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. They are the forces most likely to be called on in future interventions against terrorist groups or to rescue failing states. Reducing the Navy by one carrier group and the Air Force by two air wings would save about $5 billion a year.

Making these cuts will not be politically easy. The services are already talking up remote future threats (most involving a hostile China armed to the teeth with submarines and space-age weapons). Military contractors invoke a different kind of threat: hundreds of thousands of layoffs in a recession-weakened economy. We are all for saving and creating jobs, but not at the cost of diverting finite defense dollars from real and pressing needs — or new programs that will create new jobs.

The cuts above could save $20 billion to $25 billion a year, which could be better used as follows:

Increase the size of the ground force. The current buildup of the Army and the Marine Corps will cost more than $100 billion over the next six years. Trimming the size of the Navy and Air Force, deferring the deployment of unready missile defenses and canceling the Osprey will pay for much of that.

Pay for the Navy’s needed littoral combat ships. These ships, which operate in shallow waters to support ground combat, cost about $600 million each. Canceling the DDG-1000 destroyer (more than $3 billion per ship) and the Virginia class submarine (more than $2 billion each) will help provide that needed money.

Resupply the National Guard and the Reserves. At the present rate for replacing weapons left behind or destroyed in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Guard will still be more than 20 percent short of what it needs in 2013. Canceling the F-22 will provide enough money to do better than that years sooner.

•

Some of these changes would have been made already if the Pentagon procurement system were more responsive to present needs and less captive to service and industry lobbyists. Defense Secretary Robert Gates complains about what he calls “next war-itis,” the system’s built-in preference for what might be needed in potential future wars over what is clearly needed now. Privately, most of the service chiefs concede that their budgets, which have seen little discipline since 9/11, have some margin for cuts.

Congress will need to develop a lot more realism and restraint. Lobbyists pushing costly and unneeded weapons systems find ready allies in lawmakers looking to create or protect federally financed jobs in their districts. Big contractors like Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Northrop Grumman, Raytheon and General Dynamics have become masters at spreading those jobs around to assemble broad Congressional voting blocs. Work on the F-22 has been parceled out to subcontractors in 44 states.

Mr. Gates, who will stay on, must make reforming the procurement system a priority. The era of unlimited budgets is over, and Mr. Gates needs to make tough calls and stick to them. Congress must give more weight to the nation’s overall needs and less to parochial interests.

Fixing the Pentagon’s procurement process will require the full backing of Mr. Obama. We believe American taxpayers are eager to support changes that would make the country more secure while making more effective use of their money.